View Story | 285 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I wish I could be there, too. Since I can't I'll ask my question here and perhaps someone can read it out loud at the event.
On Monday, I posted the poll above as part of Why was Chris Floyd banned -- and what can be done about it?. I looked into this further during the week and I am convinced that whoever banned Chris Floyd made a mistake that should be corrected. He did not knowingly post double diaries nor did he engage in "sock puppetry." When he was informed of the double diary problem he couldn't delete it because he had already been banned.
As you'll see I wrote to Kos about this before posting the diary and received a dimissive and insulting reply, to which I answered: "Fix the problem, schmuck. Don't run a creepy number on the very concerned ally who is telling you that you are wrong."
Read the diary to see what it was all about. Suffice it to say that it brought out all of the worst characteristics of DailyKos but also a number of very thoughtful replies, some disagreeing, others agreeing that the issues I raised about democracy on DailyKos needed to be addressed.
It seems that most of the 95 people who responded to my poll also agreed. So did 20 of the 21 people who rated my comment: Jules Siegel, troll or concerned Kossack?(20+ / 1-) The diary was recommended by the following subscribers: claude, sen bob, Maryscott OConnor, genethefiend, litho, RabidNation, therealcervantes, ybruti, drewvsea, isinp, farleftcoast, saralee, stormkite, Annalize5, EMRosa, Doh, Wayneman, poco, tonydimarzio, cRedd, BalkanID, goinsouth, AngelaG.
So I'm not alone on this. More than that, I think it is an issue and a problem that is negatively affecting the general image of DailyKos and Kos himself in the outside world, especially among Democrats. What is this site all about? Is it only about winning or is it mainly about bringing democracy to the Democratic Party in order to elect Democrats?
If it's only about winning, than why not just find some other party to use as a vehicle to power? If it's about democracy, Mr. Moulitsas, sir, how about answering the question I posed in my letter to you instead of asserting your macho right to do as you please?
I'm not an Andrea Dworkin fan nor am I sympathetic to NOW-style feminism, but I heartily endorse this comment in an interview in New Statesman & Society:
Michael Moorcock: What do you think about the current shift to the right in US politics? Andrea Dworkin: Here, in blaming and shaming the oppressed, the powerless, the left colludes with the right. There's no reason to look to the left for justice, so people look to the right for order.
Michael Moorcock: What do you think about the current shift to the right in US politics?
Andrea Dworkin: Here, in blaming and shaming the oppressed, the powerless, the left colludes with the right. There's no reason to look to the left for justice, so people look to the right for order.
newsroom-l.net News and issues for journalists.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:19:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
that's a hell of a quote. Sums things up very thoroughly.
The History Commons needs your participation.
by Black Max on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:27:49 AM PDT
"All revolutions end in the substitution of new masters." --Carlos Fuentes.
I believe it's from The Death of Artermio Cruz, but I haven't been able to track it down. Here in Mexico, we really understand that one, but even here few people appreciate the fact the Mexican Revolution is the only one in modern history to have turned power over to the opposition peacefully and democratically.
I've tried to find another but have not been successful. The American Revolution did not turn power over to the opposition, although one might argue that the Republicans are direct descendents of the Tories.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:38:15 AM PDT
"When they give you ruled paper, write the other way." -- Juan Ramon Jiminez
by Black Max on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:40:28 AM PDT
"That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn--or be forced--to accept." Impeachment for treason IS an American value.
by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:23:29 PM PDT
My guess is that most people who insult Andrea Dworkin haven't read her work. She had one of the most eloquent voices against male violence I've ever heard. It saddens me that so many demonize her, and reduce her decades of activism to caricature and worse.
As the editor of Peacework Magazine, I edited a special issue of the magazine devoted to critically celebrating her legacy. As I wrote in my editorial, "Andrea Dworkin loved women enough to demand safety for every woman, and loved men enough to insist that we are capable of confronting and ending men's violence."
If nothing else, please read Andrea Dworkin in her own words, starting with what I regard as one of the best speeches of the 20th century, excerpted in Peacework as, "I Want a 24 Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape" or, even better, read the entire speech at Nikki Craft's Andrea Dworkin archive site.
For a critically appreciative obituary, please see Honoring A Sister by the co-editor of Peacework, Sara Burke.
In Peace,
by samdiener on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 09:53:27 AM PDT
Thanks for sharing your concerns. If you want to have your own say, then start your own blog. Kos started this forum; and it is what it is. If you want "fairness" (whatever you think that is) then do your own thing. The Internet is the ultimate communications leveler and nobody is stopping you from having your say.
Now regarding DKos - it IS about winning. You can get fairness (or at least a better hearing) once we get our candidates running Congress.
by wombat on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:47:32 AM PDT
I don't like the blog format, but I do administer newsroom-l, an email discussion list for journalists.
So no one is allowed to question what happens here on DailyKos? Fairness is not a matter of concern for its subscribers? But it is a matter of concern for government?
Come on.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:51:42 AM PDT
But when you start talking about the "stalinist" behavior on the site, you become ridiculous, and your concerns get the dismissive treatment they deserve.
by kos on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:06:45 AM PDT
but then go and fire-bomb their own arguments by letting their emotions step in front of them. "Stalinist" "Fascist" etc comments. We can talk about these issues, but no one want to talk to the guy on the street corner yelling profanities through an empty toilet-paper roll.
I supported John Edwards in 2008 and it made me proud every day
by BWasikIUgrad on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:11:47 AM PDT
/snark
John McCain opposed SCHIP
by Scientician on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:47:45 AM PDT
What a stupid and insulting thing to say.
My letter to Kos was entirely unemotional. I have no emotional feelings about this site or Markos. I do feel that it can be a useful medium in the general effort to reverse the Republican domination of American politics.
I see some very negative tendencies emerging here and I feel that they should be corrected. And, yes, I do feel that they resemble the tactics of the Stalinists. I enlarge on that in my reply to Kos further down. If you think that only the right indulges in abusive behavior to suppress dissent, you are very, very naïve.
The fact that you try to dismiss me by resorting to such a nasty metaphor proves my point.
That's exactly what the Stalinists did. They ridiculed anyone who made a serious and important challenger, the more significant the dissent, the more outlandish the ridicule.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:21:20 PM PDT
I read through your partial quote in response to Markos and think that you are mistaken in how unemotional you were in that quote.
I see words like "nasty clubbisness", "bizarre", "epidemic of fawning", and "distateful neo-Stalinist discipline tendencies" and see a lot of emotion there.
And I see quotes like this:
Until that day, enjoy yourself. But don't hand me a faceful of crap and tell me its macaroni, kid.
There's an awful lot of emotion there, none of it positive or likely to get the kind of results that you're looking for.
You might have a good message, but your delivery of it is getting in the way. Not having been involved in any of the history of this topic, I can't say which of the two is the case. As an objective viewer of what you say in this diary, though, it appears to me that you are extremely worked up about this topic and are losing your argument as a result. That's too bad, really.
"We must love one another or die." - W. H. Auden
by marathon on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:48:15 PM PDT
I'm not even plain worked up. I am, at best, mildly interested. I just happen to be a professional journalist well-known for his vehement style. That's how I write.
Life is funny that way. I just see very plain language describing the way people act around here.
And I see quotes like this: Until that day, enjoy yourself. But don't hand me a faceful of crap and tell me its macaroni, kid.
Actually, I was being polite. I wanted to say "faceful of shit" but I decided that it didn't rise to that level, and so I decided to use the less pejorative "crap," although "self-serving adolescent issue avoidance behavior" probably would have fit better.
Markos never addressed any of the issues that I raised in my letter. Neither has anyone who has replied to this comment -- unless I'm missing something. Here's the question: Markos (or one of the other high mucky-mucks) makes a mistake and commits an injustice against a subscriber. How should that be handled?
No responses, yet.
Meanwhile, see this for a complete remedy to the very painful personal problem that causes you to post comments such as the one above.
Please do not reply or troll-rate me until you do this. If you do, I will report you to the newly instituted troll-rating abuse patrol, using my IPS tracking spyware system to prove that you failed to follow my instructions.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:28:09 PM PDT
"Subscriber" actually has meaning on this site. It means someone who has paid a fee to avoid viewing ads. Do you mean ordinary user?
Anyhow, I am sure you are familiar with the concept of private property. Owners of private property (such as a home or a blog) are free to permit or deny entry to whomever they so wish. The law recognizes no redress for those denied entry. There is no such thing as a cognizable "injustice" which can committed against those denied entry.
If you have a beef with that, then your beef is with common-law property rights, not with Markos, or how he runs DailyKos.
Perhaps in a better world, there would be redress for denial of entry on to private property. But there isn't in this one. I'd also say that this is an area of the law that is actually quite in sync with morality - little, if any, opprobrium attaches to those who deny entry to private property.
Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News
by DavidNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:54:06 AM PDT
I'm a bit old-fashioned, so I used subscriber (because you subscribe to an email discussion list) rather than user, which is the correct term for this kind of forum. Some people here are subscribers, though, and they pay a fee to support the site and Kos's political activities.
No one has any legal rights on this site. It's the owner's property. That's not under discussion. Kos has every legal right to run the site exactly the way he pleases. If he wants to use it as his personal megaphone and money collector, that's his sole decision.
From a public image perspective, however, it seems to me that it's hypocritical to use freedom of speech, accountability and justice for all (among other progressive battle cries) as a political platform and then deny them to the very people who are providing you with power, influence and a nice income.
This is what disaffected, serious people mean when they say there's no real difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. So now the left (and Markos proudly identifies himself as a leftist) mirrors the right. The same language -- whine, yawn, love it or leave it -- now appears on DailyKos and FreeRepublic. DKos is much more open, of course, but the repressive tendencies are growing.
The response to feedback from the site's concerned users about this is eloquent. Shut up and do what you're told. This is private property. Next we'll be hearing about a crusade against the enemies of private property, I guess.
by Jules Siegel on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:59:35 AM PDT
This site has operated on the principle of "don't like it, leave" for a very long time.
Again I say, you might wish for Markos Moulitsas to feel bound by the first amendment and due process. But he is not, and never will be.
Fortunately, the US still is. Which means you are free to create a website which DOES adhere to those principles. I just never understand why everyone who has your complaint doesn't just create a site in their image, rather than complain about the fact that this site clearly does not conform to their preferences.
by DavidNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:43 AM PDT
That's really a shame. If you bothered to click on my link you'd see that I have a very strong web presence.
Maybe some people like me had great hopes for this site and are now disillusioned with what Markos is doing and feel that he should hear about it.
If you can't understand that, and you can't see that your comment is one of many, many others with exactly the same point, I guess we will have to put up with you, just as you will have to put up with us.
by Jules Siegel on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:26:04 AM PDT
You are the one, friend, who does not understand. I have been a member of this site for longer than almost anyone else. I know exactly what Markos is trying to accomplish here, and he's stayed remarkably true to his vision for as long as he's been running the place.
You have hopes for what someone else does with his private property. Those hopes are never going to be met. You seem to accept yes, that Markos can do what he wants, but you want to impose this normative view which says that Markos ought not do what he wants - he should do what you want.
That seems tragically anti-democratic to me. If your hopes are not being met on this site, then create another to rival it. You say you have a strong web presence. Well, use that to challenge what goes on here.
You are free, of course, to try to influence this site and Markos. But if I felt similarly to you, I would spend my time doing more constructive things.
by DavidNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:51:37 PM PDT
Do you have a genetic disposition toward pompous false courtesy or is it something you picked up like a socially transmitted disease? Get a hold of yourself, fellow. The lordly tone is for Tories, not Democrats.
Your points are, at best, specious. I don't spend a lot of time trying to influence Markos, although I've been interested over the past few days.
I'm totally uninterested in using my web presence or my influence in general to counter-attack Markos. I use my web presence to provide information about Cancun, the world of bookarts, and to provide a medium where other journalists can discuss the issues of the day in an atomosphere of mutual respect and civil discourse. Once in while I sell a book or two, or get to meet some interesting person who seeks me out because of admiration for my work.
Unlike him or you, I'm a journalist, not a political operative. I've spoken my mind here, and I will continue to do so as long as I feel like it or until I'm banned, but that's my right as a private citizen.
Your definition of what is democratic and anti-democratic are, frankly, absurd. I think you should just sign on for the next war against the enemies of private property.
Don't lecture me about private property. Go tell it to the owners of Halliburton. Don't tell me how to best spend my time. Save that for your employees and your children, if any.
You will be happy to know that yours is actually the creepiest reply I've received since I began writing about the Chris Floyd issue. Since there are now hundreds of comments, that's quite a distinction.
And now, Mr. Big Shot Swing State Project guy, a loud wet fart directed at you from sunny Cancun. Ahhhhhh! That was good. I feel so much better now. Get out your gas mask. I hope you aren't eating or drinking because this emission will definitely cause you to gag and choke. Even though you are not my favorite person today, I'd hate for the world to lose even a single Democratic vote.
If that doesn't make sense to you, please check this out immediately. It will really help you a lot. It's part of my mission. You people need this. It will do you a world of good.
by Jules Siegel on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:30:08 PM PDT
I was being sarcastic when I used the word "friend," though I'm not surprised you didn't realize that. But I'm glad I achieved the level of creepiest commenter in your eyes. I'm going to print out your comment and put it on my wall. Especially the part about my response being "absurd." Now THAT is great logical reasoning!
Enjoy yourself in sunny Cancun, the destination of millions of college-age drunkards and stoners, Mr. Big Shot Newsroom-L guy. (I never knew how easy it was to hurl stupid ad hominems! I have you to thank. Molto grazie!)
by DavidNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:01:48 PM PDT
You shouldn't attempt sarcasm. You're not very good at it. I strongly urge you to seek relief for your problem. It's no shame to be humor-impaired. It is a shame to indulge yourself in self-denial when help is at hand.
Cancun gets approximately three million visitors a year. Less than three per cent are college students. The tourism authorities were taken by surprise several years ago by a sudden influx of students who caused great damage to the resort's reputation. It took a while for them to get this under control, but they did. The Hotel Association strongly discouraged its members from soliciting this market. Only a few hotels now accept them. MTV no longer broadcasts live from Cancun during spring break.
The overwhelming majority of visitors to Cancun are adult salaried employees, mostly couples, many with children. There are a small number of wealthy individuals. About 35% of our visitors are Mexicans. You don't know that because you only know what the mainstream media tell you.
Getting back to DailyKos, absurd doesn't mean funny. It means inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense. Your response is absurd, because you create a logical fallacy. Democracy requires freedom of speech. It can't function without it because voters need to know what the issues are and how the candidates stand on them. A democracy without freedom of speech is just a sham. Is the People's Democratic Republic of China a democracy? Was the Soviet Union? And what was the characteristic they both shared? Answer: an absolute lack of freedom of speech.
It's not anti-democratic to advise a fellow citizen to listen to what other people have to say about his behavior, especially when it affects what purport to be common causes. You can't produce democracy by undemocratic methods. Otherwise, Bush's plan in Iraq would be working.
Markos doesn't have to take my advice. And he doesn't have to take the advice of so many other DailyKos users who have advised him along the same lines. His methods are obnoxious to the very people who admire other aspects of his talent. When I let it be known that I was going to review his book favorably, I was severely criticized by people who were early DKos users, who supported him when he was almost unknown, and then became disillusioned by his tin ear when it came to accepting dissent.
I felt that book stood on its own merits and I went ahead with the review -- the first independent review of Crashing the Gate -- and then I defended him when the comments on the review page turned nasty. I still stand by the review, which was accompanied by a sidebar in which I briefly mentioned some concerns about his authoritarian tendencies.
You can take a haughty and dismissive attitude toward people like me, but I can assure you that at some point it is going to jump up when you least expect it and bite you in the face. I have no personal animosity toward Markos, but my admiration has certainly been tempered by reality. Other journalists are not as forbearing as I am. You (by this I mean Markos and the DailyKos insiders) may think you can cultivate the big time media and avoid the consequences of the nasty reputation you are developing among others you might feel don't count. It's the worse thing you can do.
Big media rely on small independent media for a kind of early warning system. I'm not important because I have a big audience. I have a tiny audience. But the people who read me and talk to me have very big audiences, believe me. Other people you may never have heard about are far more influential in that regard than I am. They are precisely the ones you are turning off. I know that because I see their reactions when I say anything positive about Markos Moulitsas Zuñiga.
At this point, the big media have some curiosity about Markos, but they don't really know who he is. My guess is that when he becomes important enough to worry about, he's going to be subjected to some very searching investigative reporting. The aim will be to discredit him with his base and destroy his credibility. I don't think that will be good for the Democrats because he is very definitely a strong influence for the good. Unfortunately, that will be the very reason for the attack.
They will scrutinize the whole DailyKos record and they will make him look like a dictatorial monster and they will also dig up dirt that none of us even suspect exists. If theycan't find it, they will invent it. You know the process. Because he seems to go out of his way to offend influential but relatively unknown people who are basically sympathetic to his views on many issues but strongly disagree on certain key issues such as freedom of speech, these potential allies will not come to his aid. Some will take the opportunity to pile on.
From a strictly tactical standpoint, he should give in a little, moderate his style a bit, and adapt to the changing conditions that come with increasing prominence and celebrity. If he doesn't, he will be relegated to kookville, and he will lose much of his current influence. I feel that will be a great loss and I think that he should do something about himself now, before it is too late.
by Jules Siegel on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:28:56 PM PDT
by DavidNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:46:49 PM PDT
Simply priceless.
Actually, based on the way this person is acting here. The less said in response to this kind of crap, the better, IMO.
by marathon on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:00:40 PM PDT
by DavidNYC on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:17:44 PM PDT
by Jules Siegel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:58:40 AM PDT
Daily Kos: Outsourcing Sleaze: National Review Invites Swiftboating of Daily Kos by qwertman Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:38:05 AM PDT [Excerpts] York re-hashes a few of Kos's more controversial statements, then invites others to go trolling in the archives to come up with more. Because, of course, he himself is much too professional to stoop to out-of-context quotes....or quotes from commenters. .... York writes well and thinks clearly. And he does actual reporting, as opposed to merely bloviating. He's also dead wrong about just about everything, of course. But he was among the first on the right to recognize the "threat" of the netroots in his book "The Vast left Wing Conspiracy" -- a good read despite the hyperbolic title. .... Watch for this meme in the coming days: York's examples are picked up by the right wing echo chamber Right wing bloggers come up with more examples Media critics get in on the act, one of the best migration tactics to the MSM Feature articles and opeds appear in the MSM. Watch for headlines like "For an Iconic Wesite, New Visdibilty and New Scrutiny" Or how about: "Batttle of the Bloggers: Pioneer Liberal Site Becomes New Establisment and Finds Its Tactics Used Against Itself."
Daily Kos: Outsourcing Sleaze: National Review Invites Swiftboating of Daily Kos
by qwertman Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:38:05 AM PDT
[Excerpts]
York re-hashes a few of Kos's more controversial statements, then invites others to go trolling in the archives to come up with more. Because, of course, he himself is much too professional to stoop to out-of-context quotes....or quotes from commenters.
....
York writes well and thinks clearly. And he does actual reporting, as opposed to merely bloviating. He's also dead wrong about just about everything, of course. But he was among the first on the right to recognize the "threat" of the netroots in his book "The Vast left Wing Conspiracy" -- a good read despite the hyperbolic title.
Watch for this meme in the coming days:
by Jules Siegel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:57:50 AM PDT
hey will scrutinize the whole DailyKos record and they will make him look like a dictatorial monster and they will also dig up dirt that none of us even suspect exists. If theycan't find it, they will invent it. You know the process.
It's clear you know the process very well, from how adept you are at smearing Markos.
Asshole.
by Kimberly Stone on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:03:13 PM PDT
I never smear anyone. It is against my principles as a journalist never, never to go beyond the boundaries of truth to the slightest degree.
by Jules Siegel on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:13:32 PM PDT
by Jules Siegel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:59:00 AM PDT
less spleen would get the points across, and might even stimulate debate.
I agree with some of the basic points being made; but this is a big community.
Mistakes may have been made; there are egos involved.
Right now, your highly tuned display of spleen is making any type of meaningful discussion nearly impossible, as the response is nearly Pavlovian.
It surely is not out of ignorance .. you KNOW what the response will be. Why? Is this by design or frustration?
"You know what the real fight is? The real fight is the definition of what is reality." Bernie Sanders
by shpilk on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:12:57 PM PDT
by Jules Siegel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:59:39 AM PDT
No meaningful dialog is possible with these close-minded zealots. They argue from policy, not reason. That's why I used the term neo-Stalinism in my letter to Kos.
Anyone who tells a truth that does not conform to the party line is reviled, ridiculed and eventually banished.
by Jules Siegel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:01:29 AM PDT
Here's what I said:
I also began to observe nasty clubbishness in the comments, bizarre troll-rating wars, reports of arbitrary banning, and what I perceived to be an epidemic of fawning on Markos and other kos celebrities. I find these to be symptoms of the emergence of a party line enforced by what I see as distasteful neo-Stalinist discipline tendencies, the same tendencies that I believe caused the current Democratic dilemma.
Having lived through the effects of American Stalinism, I know what I'm talking about. Stalinism doesn't just refer to his crimes against humanity, but to the methods he used to attain power and suppress dissent.
Children of American Stalinists who attempted to reason with their parents were ignored, given dismissive answers and even ridiculed. My father, fortunately, wasn't a Stalinist, but he did say that only Russians could fully understand Stalinism because it was an expression of Russian character, not one man's insanity. My father was a criminal, not Bugsy Siegel (although he did know him). He knew about repression in a way that people of your class can never fully understand.
People like me, who have relatives who were tortured by the police, others imprisoned, who have lived outside the law in the culture of crime, whether as part of a criminal family, or as a journalist covering the counter-culture, tend to be very sensitive to repression in general. We know the police very well, and we are very aware of how cops act, whether uniformed or not.
You, perhaps, see your intolerance for dissent as a characteristic of leadership. I see it as a symptom of the authoritarian personality. You can't admit you made a mistake and just go ahead and correct it, or explain why you feel it wasn't a mistake. You must unload in a sarcastic and demeaning way on the person who dared to bring to your attention in what you perceive to be less than respectful terms.
That's a psychological problem, not a political problem. You happen to share it with the very same authoritarian personalities you tell us we need to remove from the political process. I don't believe that they can be removed from the political process, because politics attracts them. They need to exert power over other people. We can, possibly, substitute politicians whose authoritarian tendencies function for the public, common good, rather than the enrichment of a small class of property owners.
I've worked with many celebrities and politicians in my time. They all shared to greater or lesser degree symptoms of the authoritarian personality syndrome. Their drive for fame and power and wealth arose from various forms of internal fear and anxiety. Every single one of them turned against the people who helped them succeed. Every single one of them surrounded themselves with an echo chamber of sock puppets.
There were some, however, who knew their own failings and learned to listen to the advice of others, to overcome their failings, to learn how to say these very simple words: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I will do my best to fix it." They never fully overcame the psychological syndromes that made them who they were, but at least they learned to get the most noxious aspects under control.
You are a young guy and you are all charged up on your quest and you think you know what you are doing. Some day you are going to wake up after some shattering loss and you are going to have no choice but to look at what you did to cause it, and then, perhaps, this message will make some sense, if you remember it all.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:28:34 AM PDT
I can't imagine WHY people aren't responding to such kind words!
Your first diary and the emails you sent reeked of "dickhead."
You might get further with your crusade if you checked your tone.
"Someone wants a knife fight; someone I'm lookin' at." --Master Shake
by TheBlaz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:29:58 PM PDT
[1] I'm not on a crusade.
[2] Read the comment and respond to what I'm saying, if you can.
[3] Your mother wears combat boots.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:08:52 PM PDT
responded to plenty of times.
Your emails were rude, you selectively replied to comments on your diary, and you have no basis for your argument other than "I believe him."
by TheBlaz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:17:28 PM PDT
See my comment with the subject line, "Extremely worked up?"
My emails were not in the least rude. I can't say the same for Markos's stupid reply, nor for many of the comments here or on the original diary. I did reply to some of the individual comments, where I felt that there was at least a primitive point. I didn't feel it necessary to reply the ones that seemed to me to be totally without merit, although I summed up my responses to them in a collective comment.
If you think I'm rude, what do you think about people calling me a dickhead? See the comment with the subject line "[new] Gee, (0 / 0)" for an example.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:36:41 PM PDT
I don't believe there was an injustice here, but I know that's not what you want to hear.
I agree that there should be a neutral way to appeal a banning. It's happened before and someone WAS reinstated, I believe.
But in this specific instance, I don't believe an appeal is warranted. But that's simply my opinion.
Also, it was my opinion that your emails were rude and condescending. Frankly, it doesn't matter how you feel the tone of your email was, because you're not objective to it. You wrote it.
I'll even provide one example, the one I believe to be the worst:
Everyone is free to act like a moron, I guess, but it's really disappointing to see someone with your kind of talent and intelligence respond to well-meaning criticism with the same brainless stupidity he condemns so harshly in others. Fix the problem, schmuck. Don't run a creepy number on the very concerned ally who is telling you that you are wrong.
Everyone is free to act like a moron, I guess, but it's really disappointing to see someone with your kind of talent and intelligence respond to well-meaning criticism with the same brainless stupidity he condemns so harshly in others.
Fix the problem, schmuck. Don't run a creepy number on the very concerned ally who is telling you that you are wrong.
Not rude? Please.
And strictly speaking, I didn't call you a dickhead. I said what you wrote reeked of dickhead. If you'd like to equate the two, that's fine.
Your emails and comments have a tone of arrogance, condescension and implied insults.
Sorry, but that's "rude" in my book.
by TheBlaz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:52:47 PM PDT
The rudeness of my reply to Kos was in response to the absolute jerkiness of his answer to me.
I'm sorry that this place is filled with weak little flowers who can dish it out but can't take it. Implied insults are better than outright ones, which is what the various pathetic comments and replies that I am seeing in this thread are now calling forth from the depths of my tormented and frustrated soul.
What you perceive as arrogance and condescension are merely the self-confidence of a very experienced writer and professional opinionator who is, in fact, condescending to spar with a bunch of anonymous amateurs in non-paying forum instead of finishing the work at hand for his paying customers.
While my beloved bride, the beauteous Anita Brown, appreciates the concern for justice and public service that motivates this futile behavior, she asked me a few minutes ago, "Are you still replying to those Markos fans, or are you working on [project deleted for reasons of privacy]?"
I replied, "Just finishing whacking another mole, my love. I'll get right to it. Fear not."
Now I am going to make myself a cup of coffee and then I am going to drink and then I am not going to use any further energy responding to people who want to lecture me on the difference between saying that someone's comments reek of dickhead and saying he is a dickhead.
That's not condescending, of course. I couldn't possibly have been aware of the distinction. If you have not already done so, please go to New hope... and then get in touch with me for instructions on how to order the strap-on backpack enema model, which is clearly required in your case, as the one that goes behind the ear will never work.
[Off screen: "Yes, honey. I'm finished with the dwarf people. Sorry it took so long."]
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:15:16 PM PDT
Think you're clever?
You're not.
Think you won the argument?
You did not. You lost in a 1st round knockout.
You maligned Kos in a deceptive way. You trust people who have been demonstrated to be untruthful and deceptive.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:26:45 PM PDT
Wow. You're certainly a tough guy. I wish I had your talent.
/laugh
Keep thinking of yourself as a badass internet tough guy, it's pretty damn funny.
While my beloved bride, the beauteous Anita Brown, appreciates the concern for justice and public service that motivates this futile behavior, she asked me a few minutes ago, "Are you still replying to those Markos fans, or are you working on [project deleted for reasons of privacy]?" I replied, "Just finishing whacking another mole, my love. I'll get right to it. Fear not."
It's so wonderful to hear that you've found self-validation. Reminds me of someone who, while talking to their friends, says "Yeah, and then I was like, 'Asshole, you'd better back up because you have no idea what you're talking about!' And then he totally walked away!"
You're only interesting in your own mind, dude.
Haha, you're a sad, sad man. If you're trying to validate your opinion by insinuating a conversation between yourself and some person who somehow finds the patience to deal with someone like yourself, then keep trying.
You're funny, please post a reply. I love this stuff.
Keep going, you're only proving yourself to be a condescending prick. Not that we needed more proof of such a thing, you've done wonderfully so far.
Translation: "I'm trying to be clever when I'm clearly not, so I'm going to go to my wife and tell her how I totally whipped someone in an online debate, but I won't give her details because I don't want her to question my awesomeness in internet debates."
Please, write another diary about this. I'd love to keep sparring.
by TheBlaz on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:17:26 PM PDT
by Jules Siegel on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:00:11 AM PDT
sorry.
Let's make rope.
by AnonymousArmy on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:19:06 PM PDT
by Kimberly Stone on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:06:32 PM PDT
I have to go out and get some work done, so I won't be able to reply to your comments in a timely fashion.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:53:02 AM PDT
In your previous diary?
Why do you still maintain that Chris Floyd had no knowledge of the duplicate diaries when there is clear evidence that that information was provided to him on numerous occasions?
Are you still trying to maintain that he didn't know that his webmaster posted his words in a diary here? His webmaster says they speak every day. Now, I would never insist that you need to take the guy literally, but if they do have this close relationship and do communicate very frequently, how believable is it to suggest that 'Ghandi' did not tell Chris Floyd that he was posting a diary here with Chris' latest attack on Democrats? I don't believe that. I don't believe that he would have posted Chris' words here and not told Chris within that 5 hour separation between Ghandi's diary and Chris' diary.
On top of that, his blog entry from his site was not worthy of a single diary, much less two diaries. There were other Hayden diaries available. It could have been an entry on another diary. It seems clear that these diaries were an attack on Democrats and free advertising for Chris' website, rather than only an attempt to add to the discussion.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:45:28 AM PDT
and add one more thing.
Chris didn't even have to go to the FAQ's to find out that creating a duplicate diary was wrong, or have people in the diary itself tell him that it was wrong. He should have gone to the FAQ's, but many people don't, and people did tell him that it was a duplicate diary, and they even provided links back to Ghandi's diary.
When you create a diary, there are 4 rules. The first line is in red and it says "Attention: Read the Rules".
Rule # 3 is
No repetitive diaries. If it's been blogged or diaried, there's no need to repeat it. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged.
Chris didn't do that simple step.
If he did a search for Hayden and horse, he would have found it. http://www.dailykos.com/...
If he had done a search on his own name, he would have found it. http://www.dailykos.com/...
If he had done a search on Hayden, he would have found it. http://www.dailykos.com/...
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:58:09 PM PDT
Because I was busy earning a living, and then I came home and answered Kos's pathetic response and a couple of others, and then I had lunch, and then I rested. And now here I am to answer your comment:
[1] The way the error occurred was explained in my email to Kos.
[2] It is explained again in a reply to you that I wrote a little while ago, which you rejected.
[3] Yes, I believe Chris, because I have now corresponded at some length with him and with his webmaster, Richard, and I see no reason to doubt their explanations.
[4] I consider your "evidence" at best weak and at worst obsessively over-interpreted.
[5] I now have to go back to earning a living and I am tired of responding to closed-minded zealots who have the absolute fucking nerve to accuse a fellow journalist (with whom I have had no personal relation whatsoever before I looked into this) of lying about an entirely trivial incident involving a political forum filled with people like you.
Is that clear? If not, go to the top and read it again.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:47:15 PM PDT
Chris Floyd had an obligation to check to see if there were diaries on that subject before he posted. He did not. Every time you create a diary, it tells you this under Rule # 3.
Chris Floyd was told that his diary was a duplicate in his own diary.
Chris Floyd and Rich were communicating, according to Rich's (Ghandi's) diary.
It's not believable that Chris didn't know that Rich had posted that.
This is not the first time that the two of them had posted duplicate diaries.
What's clear is your inability to accept that you were misled by Chris Floyd. That's what's clear.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:10:55 PM PDT
And at that point, I had no idea about the "sockpuppet" hoo-hah anyway. There were just a couple of comments to my diary to the effect of, "It was better the first time around." I didn't know what they were talking about.
How do you reconcile the above with the posts in his diary that clearly provided links back to Ghandi's diary and/or referenced comments taken directly from his own work?
You cannot.
It cannot be true that there were only a couple of comments that he did not understand about how it was better the first time around. I linked to posts that show that.
You tried to do the same thing that Chris Floyd did on his website, and that is provide only a portion of the available evidence. There were multiple people harassing Kos about the banning of Chris Floyd via email. That's clear. You do the same thing, and he says 'fuck off, idiot', and you then try to act like he is the one off his meds and making unreasonable decisions. That's unfair to Kos and to this site.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:23:54 PM PDT
He said
He did not knowingly post double diaries nor did he engage in "sock puppetry." When he was informed of the double diary problem he couldn't delete it because he had already been banned.
That's not true.
Not only is it not true, I told Jules this several times on Monday! How is it that he doesn't know it now?
Here's a post I made that included links to both diaries and information. http://www.dailykos.com/...
Here's another link to another comment I made on Jules' diary. http://www.dailykos.com/...
Here's what Rich, his website guy, said when the two of them seemed to be sockpuppets on a Leopold diary. http://www.dailykos.com/... Chris and I talk daily as we run a blog together. So they talk daily but Chris didn't know that Rich posted one of Chris's stories here as a diary? When Rich posted the diary first, he was told that there were plenty of Hayden diaries already. When Chris posted his later in the day, there were several comments that told him that it was a duplicate diary, but neither was ever deleted. It was a wimpy excuse for a diary, it bumped other diaries off the list, and it was a duplicate that was not removed.
Here's what Rich, his website guy, said when the two of them seemed to be sockpuppets on a Leopold diary.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Chris and I talk daily as we run a blog together.
So they talk daily but Chris didn't know that Rich posted one of Chris's stories here as a diary?
When Rich posted the diary first, he was told that there were plenty of Hayden diaries already.
When Chris posted his later in the day, there were several comments that told him that it was a duplicate diary, but neither was ever deleted.
It was a wimpy excuse for a diary, it bumped other diaries off the list, and it was a duplicate that was not removed.
Jules did reply to some comments on that diary. Funny, but he never even tried to challenge my points. Maybe because he couldn't.
So, going back to Jules' point, that poor old Chris Floyd could not do anything to remove the offending diaries because by the time he knew about it, he had been banned! Not true.
The first diary was published by Ghandi around 10 in the morning. Moments after it was posted, TeresaInPa told him http://www.dailykos.com/...
this is the third diary on this in about 10 minutes.
Ghandi posted no comments on that diary, and even after being told it was a duplicate diary, did not remove it. Remember, Ghandi says that he and Chris talk daily, but somehow Ghandi never told Chris that he posted Chris' work on DailyKos on that day. I believe that, and I believe in the tooth fairy too.
So then Chris Floyd posts an almost identical diary at 3 that afternoon, and what happens? Within moments of it being posted, numerous people tell him that it's a duplicate diary and he should remove it.
ek hornbeck, BiminiCat, floundericiousMI, Yellow Canary, RepublicanTaliban, Ahianne, NewDirection, blockbuster, and dannyinla all told Chris Floyd that it was a duplicate diary. Several of them even referenced Ghandi's diary or provided links back to it.
So, Jules says
That's just not believable, nor does it jive with the facts. He was told. I do not believe that he would not have known that 'Ghandi' posted the same diary earlier, and even if he didn't, he was told in his own diary, but he did not remove it. He was informed in his own diary moments after it was posted, so it's just not true to say that he couldn't delete it. He could have. He chose not to do so. For that choice, he was banned.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 11:36:14 AM PDT
How did these people tell Chris about his duplicate diary? Did they call him on the phone? Bombard him with urgent email messages? Or did they leave comments on the diary?
Here's what he told me:
I was looking at the comments you got for the diary entry at Kos. Pretty depressing. And still with the doppelganger stuff: "let Chris Floyd prove he is a real person" or even "let an independent investigation prove" that Floyd and Kastelein are different people, etc. It's nuts. I see one new tack is, "If Floyd really posted his duplicate diary accidentally, why didn't he just remove it?" The reason is that I was banned BEFORE I even knew there was a duplicate diary out there. Another was, "Why didn't Floyd remove the diary when he was told it was a duplicate?" Because nobody told me it was a duplicate. I just put the entry up there late one afternoon -- on my entirely separate computer in my office at Oxford University, far away from Rich in Holland -- then went about my business. A few hours later I get a message from Rich saying that he'd been banned and I probably would be too. I checked my Kos site -- and I was already locked out. I couldn't comment or post up an explanation. And at that point, I had no idea about the "sockpuppet" hoo-hah anyway. There were just a couple of comments to my diary to the effect of, "It was better the first time around." I didn't know what they were talking about.
I was looking at the comments you got for the diary entry at Kos. Pretty depressing. And still with the doppelganger stuff: "let Chris Floyd prove he is a real person" or even "let an independent investigation prove" that Floyd and Kastelein are different people, etc. It's nuts. I see one new tack is, "If Floyd really posted his duplicate diary accidentally, why didn't he just remove it?" The reason is that I was banned BEFORE I even knew there was a duplicate diary out there.
Another was, "Why didn't Floyd remove the diary when he was told it was a duplicate?" Because nobody told me it was a duplicate. I just put the entry up there late one afternoon -- on my entirely separate computer in my office at Oxford University, far away from Rich in Holland -- then went about my business.
A few hours later I get a message from Rich saying that he'd been banned and I probably would be too. I checked my Kos site -- and I was already locked out. I couldn't comment or post up an explanation. And at that point, I had no idea about the "sockpuppet" hoo-hah anyway. There were just a couple of comments to my diary to the effect of, "It was better the first time around." I didn't know what they were talking about.
You are trying to tell me that a guy like Chris Floyd is going to lie to me to cover his ass on a site like DailyKos? This may be your only outlet for your political views, but it isn't his only outlet and it isn't mine.
You don't find him believable. I do. More than that, I think that your minute disquisition and endless speculation about his motives or what actually happened at what exact time are entirely disproportionate to the supposed offense.
Big deal. Some guy posted a diary and a friend of his posted it, too. Wow. They broke the rules. I am horrified. Why were they only banned? Surely they deserved to be burned at the stake.
Have a nice day, Internet viewers.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:03:40 PM PDT
If that is what he says.
He posted a diary and never checked a comment? I don't believe it. He knows about this site. He knows about checking diaries that you post yourself. He has commented on his own diaries before. I believe that either you are lying about what he said, or that he is lying about what actually happened. I do not believe that his webmaster, Rich, who just a few days before this episode said that they talk every day, would have posted Chris' blog entry as a diary here without telling him within 5 hours that he had done so.
And what about the bigger point I made, Jules - that I had already told you all this before? Huh? I note that you failed to reply to a single post of mine on your first diary on this topic. When I bring that fact up, that this information had been made available to you before, you ignore that point here too.
It's not a 'new' tack for me as 'Chris' says. It is the tack that I have stuck with from the very start. In fact I have disputed that there was proof that he had a sockpuppet. (At one point in time I did bring up that it was not believable that both Rich and Chris indicated that they did not even know what a sockpuppet was! I don't believe that, but it fit conveniently into their 'stories', so I believe that it is just another piece of circumstantial evidence that makes their stories less believable.)
He gives himself away to anyone who has half a brain. He claims that
There were just a couple of comments to my diary to the effect of, "It was better the first time around." I didn't know what they were talking about.
But that's not true. There were several direct references as well as links to the previous diary posted by Ghandi! http://www.dailykos.com/... posted half an hour after his diary was posted. http://www.dailykos.com/... or here where DannyinLA mentions Ghandi by name and blockquotes my favorite line, about how Democrats are a "fetid sack of quivering jellyfish: spineless, boneless, brainless, useless."
In looking back through the diary history of both Ghandi and Chris Floyd, it looks like there were more than one instance of nearly duplicate diary postings.
If the diary postings had happened at about the same time, then an accident could be asserted. With a 5 hour separation, I don't think that's the case.
You end with a strawman argument. I never said that a worse penalty should be applied to these two posters. The argument was whether or not there appeared to be collusion to post duplicate diaries in violation of the rules. There did. There still does. The excuses given ring hollow and don't hold water.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:40:01 PM PDT
I believe you're daft. It all balances out.
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:09:59 PM PDT
I provided evidence that documents how he could have and should have known this.
You provided no evidence that I am daft.
You lose.
Nothing is a substitute for evidence, not even untrue statements about my mental health. I am proud to say that you were unable to dispute any of my comments. You didn't do so when I made them on your first diary on this topic, and you didn't do it when you posted on this thread either.
I also now believe that you cannot support your declarations on this topic.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:19:23 PM PDT
In Thor's diary back in early June.
If that happened and you were told that it was a duplicate diary, then shouldn't you delete one? They were hours apart. They got comments immediately. It was a diary that unfairly and unreasonably, in my mind, attacked Democrats. It was not a substantial issue, in my mind, and didn't deserve to be a diary at all. There were plenty of Hayden diaries and Open Threads. They were both told that there were duplicate diaries and neither was removed. http://www.dailykos.com/... http://www.dailykos.com/... And in another place, Ghandi (Rich) says Chris and I talk daily as we run a blog together. http://www.dailykos.com/... They talk daily, but Chris Floyd didn't know that Rich posted Chris's column?
If that happened and you were told that it was a duplicate diary, then shouldn't you delete one?
They were hours apart. They got comments immediately.
It was a diary that unfairly and unreasonably, in my mind, attacked Democrats. It was not a substantial issue, in my mind, and didn't deserve to be a diary at all. There were plenty of Hayden diaries and Open Threads. They were both told that there were duplicate diaries and neither was removed.
And in another place, Ghandi (Rich) says
They talk daily, but Chris Floyd didn't know that Rich posted Chris's column?
I am quite stable. I never said that I suspected he was banned because they discovered he had a sockpuppet account. I bet it's because of the multiple duplicate diaries and the obnoxious and unfair attacks on Democrats in general in that most recent diary. Having sockpuppets is unacceptable. Having a close friend act like a sockpuppet would act is not acceptable either.
Mike S said in that same diary by Thor
Upon further review, the Ghandi one is supposedly a reprint of Chris' original. What doesn't make sense is the fact that Chris posted it AFTER ghandi posted it. And in the comments of ghandi's diary he wrote this comment BEFORE Chris wrote his diary. I find it rather revealing (1+ / 10-) Chris Floyd won't post here anymore and requested me, his webmaster, to remove the banner and text links to Daily Kos that we used to carry at Empire Burlesque as some sort of 'harmony' with the 'mainstream' progressive movement. It seems to me that there is much more to this story than originally reported by Chris Floyd.
Upon further review, the Ghandi one is supposedly a reprint of Chris' original. What doesn't make sense is the fact that Chris posted it AFTER ghandi posted it.
And in the comments of ghandi's diary he wrote this comment BEFORE Chris wrote his diary.
I find it rather revealing (1+ / 10-)
Chris Floyd won't post here anymore and requested me, his webmaster, to remove the banner and text links to Daily Kos that we used to carry at Empire Burlesque as some sort of 'harmony' with the 'mainstream' progressive movement.
It seems to me that there is much more to this story than originally reported by Chris Floyd.
So Mike S says that before Chris ever even posted his diary, he was pissed at DailyKos. Since I cannot see Hidden Comments, I cannot verify all the Ghandi comments on his own diary that were troll-rated. It looks like the facts are against you here. They never squared with the picture that Chris Floyd painted of this incident, and they still do not square.
by bobbobgirl on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:40:08 PM PDT
Excellent detective work. A major case for Perry Mason, I'm sure.
[Off-screen. Picks up spirit line: "Hello, hello, is that you Clarence? We've got another case for the attorney for the damned. A fellow named Chris Floyd has been sent to Coventry for some dreadful infractions of the posting rules on DailyKos.com. I need you for the appeal as they've got a high-powered prosecutor named bobbobgirl who is determined to silence him forever. What's that you say? No, that's not her real name. None of them use their real names. It's all a Star Chamber proceeding. I think they wear masks and everything." Loud rumbling and -- WOW! -- Clarence Darrow swooshes up from Hell, where he has been preparing the defense of Ann Coulter in anticipation of her arrival.]
Goodbye, Bobbobgirl. I don't usually argue with anonymous phantoms, and I have a lot of other things to do right now, what with Clarence Darrow's ghost being here and all. You stop by if you ever get to Cancun, hear?
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:28:12 PM PDT
You still aren't clever.
You are the one that made inane declarations.
You got put in your place, and now your attempts to put others down just make you look petty and immature, not clever and correct.
by bobbobgirl on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:22:47 PM PDT
lying
At least it's clear what we're dealing with here now.
by Kimberly Stone on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:20:26 PM PDT
by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:13:10 PM PDT
Thank you -- although I think your comment would be clearer if you said, "If Dkos fails in its struggle to embody..." Democracy will always be a struggle. That's a given. But we must struggle to succeed, and not give in to the very tactics of those who would shut us down.
"Lo mejor de la democracia es que se puede hablar mal de ella." --Note found on the Cancun Post Office buleltin board, 1998. (Loosely translated, "The best thing about democracy is that you can say bad things about it.")
by Jules Siegel on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 12:28:08 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 285 comments