Skip to main content

View Diary: Wanted: A Social History of Daily Kos (651 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some answers (4.00)
    Number 2:  I'm not sure about Ron K Seattle.  Melanie left when people complained about the religious content in her front-page posts (oh, the irony, given some people's current Bible obsession . . .).  Largely due to complaints--not, I think, due to his own problems with her writing--kos removed her.  She now has a fine solo blog and contributes to several group blogs.  Theoria destroyed his account after the SYFPH diary and some of the other dissent-stiflng crap that went on.  I thought about giving it up, but I just kind of stopped commenting much for a while.

    Number 4:  Petey is/was/ever shall be a very subtle troll.  He was never all "Denmocrats suck rocks!" but he knew how to push buttons.  Personally, I kind of miss him, because as often ad he pushed my buttons, he pushed other people's buttons the way I wish I could have.  He came back at least twice.  Now I think he's given up for good.

    •  Definitely miss him (none)
      Petey come back!!

      I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

      by Armando on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:26:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  IMHO (none)
      I don't think Petey was ever a troll. He was a very astute reader of politics, and was Edwards all the way. His analysis was rarely wrong. But like RonK, he never really enjoyed the community aspect of dKos and neither suffered fools gladly. Both, in their own way, had that as the root of their issues. RonK is still around, and pay attention when he posts... he's rarely off base.

      I miss Petey, even though at times he could be insufferably righteous 9especially about trippi, whom he despised). But then again, strong opinions are not unknown here. Working within the dKos context is not always easy, but again IMHO, well worth the effort.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:30:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I remember (4.00)
      that there was a particular set of posters who targeted Melanie, some of them still here and still vocal.  

      That was an enormous disappointment to me and was, to my mind, dKos' worst moment.

      And the irony of it given later developments is one of those things that this site has actually been full of.  

      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember movable type (4.00)
        and Melanie.

        I agree that this was one of the worst moments. Melanie was trying to have an important conversation that needed to be had. As dems we are just screwing ourselves by ignoring religion (remember when that was a controversial statement around here?)

        The religious left needs our help in battling the religious right, not our judgement for a perceived feeblemindedness. And we need an empowered religious left to blow the cover off the the repub. party's faith based deceptions.

        Melanie was a political prophet around here and was duely shunned for it.

         The Melanie haters must have been blindsided by the religious right's power to turn it out for Bush. I had thought it was a shame that frank religious-political discussion was interpreted as somehow dignifying religious wingnuttery.

        Now there's quite a bit more religious tolerance around here. I see it as a natural evolution brought about by just the size of our community here. But Bush's big victory has made a lot of religious lefties braver too. I think they see a need to unabashedly speak out for their beliefs if they are to put a stop to the downward spin Christianity (in particular) is taking. And its pragmatic for the rest of us to let them say their piece.

        Letting them speak is the right thing to do. Not letting them speak is The Right thing to do. We are the party of tolerance, after all.

        •  Melanie was a Political Prophet (none)
          Indeed.  From sdf's recent diary reviewing a Howard Dean appearance at the presumably-faily-secular Stanford:

          One of the biggest applause lines came when he challenged the radical right's claim to ownership of Christian rhetoric. Jesus, he declared, was about including the downtrodden, and the Republicans, with their insistence on public displays of religion, resemble nothing more than the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

          We are all coming to realize, I think, that the Right kinda stole Christianity.  I mean, what gives with secular types (and I'm the biggest atheist of them all) dissing the views of liberal Christians?  These people are a huge group of our allies.  But we've let the Right fool us into thinking that Christ really does stand for their politics.
      •  I'm afraid I'm one who jumped all over Melanie (4.00)
        in fact, my first posts were in response to her entreaties for more Democratic openness regarding religion.  

        To this day, I am somewhat ashamed of the intensity of my response.  In retrospect, however, I believe that Melanie framed her argument poorly: rather than saying simply that  Democrats had to figure out a way to expand the tent to include and welcome more religious moderates...or figure out a way to talk to religious moderates and liberals...she directly criticized the Democratic party and party activists for being too secular.  The post came across (to me, at least), as more of an attack an secularism, agnosticism, and atheism, than as a well-thought-out political strategry.

        I for one have always been rather fond of the Democratic Party's secularism--or perhaps ecumenicalism--and, in comparison to recent moves by the Bushies, I am more proud of it than ever.  

        Still, Melanie was right; the Democratic Party will be crippled as long as it is alienated from so many religious folk.  

        •  Funny..... (2.00)
          I always thought Melanie outlined her arguments exceedly well. It was the herd mentality folks (think "Groupthink"!) that poorly framed their comments into an all-out "Christian bash-fest."

          Glad to see at least one former basher who believes she's worthy of vindication.

          "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people... it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

          by KSKathy on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 02:25:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I seem to remember (none)
          galiel being the most vitrolic.  Up to that point I had admired galiel and had looked forward to his input, but he really went ballistic on Melanie and in a way that I felt was uncalled for. And I say that as an agnostic, a person of no faith.

          That series of exchanges changed my opinion and my dealings with galiel from that point on.

          Still, it was a real low point.  And I remain convinced that it wasn't simply the religion that was the issue, but her gender.  The place was much more male then, much more juvenile in its maleness and there had never been a woman on the front page before.  Frankly we've had much weaker male front page posters than Melanie was (her biggest problem was overkill, she posted tons of prose in a relatively short period of time and pissed people off) and while we've argued with them, we've never given them the kind of grief that the community as a whole gave Melanie.  No one will ever convince me that gender didn't play a role in that.

          The place is better now than it used to be in terms of gender, and I don't just mean in numbers but also in behavior.  There were plenty of evenings when this place felt like a frat party, or even a high school boys locker room.  (Another part of the social history I've not seen anyone bring up).

          In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

          by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:22:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  to be fair, and iirc (none)
            it was a Clark bashing post, not one on religion that sparked the tinder. I don't think the other factors you mentioned were absent, but the Clark post and the reaction to it (including Melanie's reaction) were less than our finest hour, as you have said... still much of the flare-up was political during the primary wars, when tempers were short to begin with.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:36:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Could well be (none)
              I rarely read posts about particular candidates during the primaries as I found that stuff pretty tedious, unless you were a member of one of the fan clubs/inside baseball jazz. So I'm sure I didn't even read said Clark thread, which would explain why I'm remembering differently. I just remember all the testosterone that was being thrown at Melanie every time she posted and remember that much of it came when religion was discussed.  

              In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

              by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:52:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Galiel (none)
              was a Clarkie?  Who knew?

              I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

              by Armando on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:57:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um, no (4.00)
                In fact, I was the one who got into flamefests with the real Wesley Jr., because of my posts cautioning that military generals transitioning into civilian life should a) be subject to extra scrutiny and skepticism and b) should not be given a free pass to the highest office in the land without ever having been elected to or even run for any political office in their life.

                Over time, applying that extra scrutiny and skepticism, I came to be an admirer of Clark and a believer in his sincerity. However, I break with the prevailing worship of the CEO-type and believe that the best training for political leadership is political experience, and in particular the best training for the presidency is a life of public service combined with a history of elected accountability.

                I came here as a Hart fan, and when he decided not to run I checked out the other candidates and was impressed with Dean. Hart is a radical Jeffersonian, and so am I, but his radical vision is not likely to become reality in our lifetime.

                The day after Hart decided not to run, I met Dean up in New Hampshire. This was still the very early days of his campaign and I had an opportunity to speak with him personally and also see him speak one-on-one with "regular people", long after the television cameras were gone.

                I was firmly on the Dean side of the camp here thoughout the primaries, although I don't worship political leaders or anyone else, don't agree with him on all issues and never understood the childish personalization of political debate here, which seemed to me to be driven more by "fanboi" types who paint their faootball teams colors on their stomachs and scream themselves hoarse at a game, rather than by thoughtful, skeptical, responsible citizens weighing the best choice among a less than perfect bunch.

                Clark is a good man. I'd vote for him for state attorney general or school committee in a heartbeat. Let him work his way up the system like anyone new to politics, rather than thinking his stars and bars buy him an automatic position at the top.

                "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                by galiel on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 04:13:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Technically It Wasn't The Clark Story (4.00)
              It was the biggest factor, but not the only one or the final one.  [BTW, I think the objection people had on the Clark post was that she flamed Wesley Clark with what a lot of folks, myself included, was a glib and unfair reading of his book, and then she didn't comment on the thread.  She dissed Clark pretty bad, and even a lot of people who weren't supporting Clark felt that she was being unfair to Clark and that she shouldn't make what they thought was an inflamatory post and then not defend her points or address the questions raised by readers on the comment thread.]  She got attacked for the religion stories, as did I when that same week I wrote one and people jumped all over my ass as well because I mentioned the crazy idea that it's a decent political idea to not disprespect people's faith or spirituality, and that it can be done without pandering or validating the tenets of any particular religion.  But I'm pretty sure the religion stories didn't have anything to do with her not staying on the front page.

              But the final straw was the dogs and cats story, about 5:00 PM on a Friday, and it was quickly pulled down and her administrator access shut off.  From what I know, it wasn't the content as much as a disagreement between her and Markos about how much she should post, when, and whether she should post about her own life unless it somehow illuminated a bigger political/social/economic issue for which people come here to read about.  

              And just to be clear, and DemFromCT, Meteor Blades and Trapper John have all made this same point: none of us were ever asked not to write on some particular subject, none of us were ever censored, and none of us were vetted for ideological or partisan consisistency with Markos' own candidate preferences.  For proof, Meteor Blades admitted after Dean dropped out that he had been leaning toward Dean but had some concerns about problems that eventually did arise, DemFromCT recently admitted that he was leaning Clark, then Edwards, Trapper John was always with Gephardt, and after an early--April and May 2003--flirtation with Dean, I was undecided through December of 2003, after I had already been a front page blogger for over four months, and from which point I seldom posted until after Clark dropped out in early Februrary.  None of us were ever asked to or expected to abide by a party or company line, and we were never presented with any such line.  

              •  Maybe you should also (none)
                disclose that your support for Clark was concurrent with being hired by his campaign.
                •  Maybe You Should Start Running... (none)
                  ...my personal errands, paying my bills, attending to my needs, and everything else that goes with my life, since you have such a perverse interest in me.

                  I'm glad to know that I'm such a big part of your life.  It's too bad you have so little of interest happening in your own life that you have to get involved in mine.

                  With everything I write, you assess it with extraneous and irrelevant information that you apparently effects the credibility of my statements, arguments and presentation of facts.  And as with just about everything that pertains to me, you're wrong about my support for Clark.  But again, being wrong seems to go hand in hand with you being consistently rude, humorless, paranoid, and completely obsessed with me.  Oh, and being a hypocrit...can't forget about that.  (You know, the "don't respond to me, and I won't respond to you bs.)  

                  Man, you really need to get a grip Marie, because I'm pretty sure that based upon your bizarre fixation with me and my supposed motive, you're a fucking loon.  

                  •  self-referential? (none)
                    With everything I write, you assess it with extraneous and irrelevant information that you apparently effects the credibility of my statements, arguments and presentation of facts.

                    Wow. pot, meet.....crack.

                    Does the irony of making this statement on this very diary not hit you between the eyes? Or are you utterly oblivious to our exchange on this exact topic?

                    Regardless of the merits of Marie's post (I note you don't deny her assertion of fact), for you to complain that someone is prejudging your comments in this way is so breathtakingly hypocritical it is hard to believe you wrote it with a straight face.

                    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                    by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:48:20 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ignore, respond below, dble (none)
                      this was supposed to be a preview, and upon reviewing the information I was in error. The correct post is below. Please respond to that one, thanks.

                      "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                      by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:52:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  self-referential? (none)
                    With everything I write, you assess it with extraneous and irrelevant information that you apparently effects the credibility of my statements, arguments and presentation of facts.

                    Wow. pot, meet.....crack.

                    Does the irony of making this statement on this very diary not hit you between the eyes? Or are you utterly oblivious to our exchange on this exact topic?

                    For you to complain that someone is prejudging your comments in this way is so breathtakingly hypocritical it is hard to believe you wrote it with a straight face.

                    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                    by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 11:49:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Get Real (none)
                      It's amazing how you continue to willfully ignore the way I began the comment, and to which I again referred in my first response to your overly dramatic martyr act:

                      Doesn't take away from anything you say.

                      C'mon, you're smart enough to understand that I commenting on the subjects that get you riled up, but not discrediting the quality of your arguments or attributing your positions to something inherent in your biography, your political allegiances, your profession, etc.

                      Don't complain about people attributing motives to you and then turn around and ignore what others state in clear and declarative language.  It makes you look dishonest.  

                      •   now this is some (none)
                        Social History. Heh.

                        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

                        by Armando on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:11:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  More blatant dishonesty (none)
                        Actually, here is how you began the comment.
                        FWIW.....I saw the headline and thought "hmmm, scroll down to see if it's Galiel."

                        Then you went on and said:

                        Doesn't take away from anything you say, but it does maybe point out that there are some subjects that elicit persistent responses from the same quarters, kind of like sqawking on a duck call and seeing the mallard fly straight toward you.

                        (emphasis mine)

                        As I pointed out, the comment you replied to was only the second time in my more than two years here that I ever commented on the statistical validity of a diary poll, and the other comment was just yesterday, in response to a discussion with the same person who posted this poll, on the thread in which you made your blatantly ad hominem and utterly false comment.

                        You are in such self-denial and so incapable of accepting responsibility for your actions and their effects on others, that you are actually lying about your own posts.

                        You are beginning to behave more like a garden-variety, deliberate bully/troll than a respected frontpager on kos.

                        Clearly you derive some kind of juvenile pleasure from hurting others, even when you are just piling on an easy target. Just as clearly, you just don't care what kind of effect such behavior has on the community as a whole and the emerging norms.

                        Rather than provide a positive example and encourate others to focus on content rather than ad hominem attacks on the messenger, you present yourself as the posterchild for hate.

                        It astonishes me the extent to which people are so self-absorbed and insecure they can't simply say "I'm sorry" when they do something blatantly wrong.

                        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                        by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:49:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I Didn't Realize You Were So Tender... (none)
                          ...and vulnerable.  Hard to believe in light of the vehemence with which you consistently lay into others, but thanks for pointing out that you are so tragically incapable of not taking supreme offense at an offhanded post that wasn't meant to cause the greivous injury it apparently did.  My deepest apologies, and I hope some day you recover from the damage I hadn't realized that I had caused.
                          •  Once again, you deflect responsibility (none)
                            blaming the victim rather than taking responsibility for your own actions.

                            This is the behavior of a juvenile, not a responsible adult. You add insult to injury, utterly incapable of accepting responsibility and considering others.

                            It is truly sad to see this side of you, DH. All you had to do, up front, is say, "sorry if I offended you" and admit that the behavior you were openly boasting about was not an asset to this community.

                            The entire discussion would have ended. I would have accepted your apology and we could have moved on.

                            Instead, you engage in this truly pathetic and rather embarrasing display.

                            "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                            by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:58:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I Already Apologized... (none)
                            ...in a manner befitting the "seriousness" of the alleged offense.  

                            I'm not pledging you my first-born, so you're going to have to live with what you've got, and just deal with it.

                            I'm done.

                  •  Don't flatter yourself (none)
                    Anyone who has the time to waste, can view for themselves how many times you have violated this special "rule" for you and me.  I don't jump into your Diaries, and don't even read them.  Not even when someone did pointed out to me a one recent one where you specifically mistated something I had said (and no it wasn't Mariscat who pointed this out to me).  I even purposely didn't bother to respond to at least one one recent comments to one of mine.

                    You may think it is honorable not to disclose the fact that one works for a particular candidate's campaign, and make comments in support of that candidate as if you have no vested interest in it.  I think that is dishonest and abusive of the trust that makes for a good and fair interchange of ideas, observations and opinions.  And if you as you now say, you didn't back any primary candidate until 12/03, when you were hired by Clark that in my opinion makes you even less worthy of respect.

                    Sorry, you did not find my "Mojo Rising" Diary humorous.  Many others did; therefore, it may not be I who lacks a sense of humor.

                    (Please note that I am polite enough only to point out your official standing with a campaign and your failure to disclose that fact.  I have not and will not go further.  btw - it only took reading another blog for a few minutes and a couple of minutes in Yahoo a year ago to ID you -- but being cautious didn't mention this until you recently dropped another big clue that confirmed it.)  

                     

                    •  Get Your Own Fucking Life (none)
                      Anyone who has the time to waste, can view for themselves how many times you have violated this special "rule" for you and me.  I don't jump into your Diaries, and don't even read them.

                      It was you who stated that it would be your policy...but you never kept it.  I guess your commitments don't mean much.  And yeah, I violated it about three months ago...the time that you eventually admitted that you rate comments by whether you agree with them, which I was true but which contradicts what you wrote in that diary you're apparently so disappointed that I "jumped into."  

                      Not even when someone did pointed out to me a one recent one where you specifically mistated something I had said (and no it wasn't Mariscat who pointed this out to me).

                      Hmmm, barely ever mentioned your name, so don't know what it might have been.  Citation?

                      I even purposely didn't bother to respond to at least one one recent comments to one of mine.

                      Oh, the comment where you asserted that Muslims voted for Bush in 2000 because he spoke the Old Testament, to which I offered a counterargument and stated that they voted for him in 2000 despite the reason you thought they had?

                      You may think it is honorable not to disclose the fact that one works for a particular candidate's campaign, and make comments in support of that candidate as if you have no vested interest in it.  I think that is dishonest and abusive of the trust that makes for a good and fair interchange of ideas, observations and opinions.

                      YET AGAIN, YOU ARE FUUULLLLLLLLLLL OF SHIT, ABSOLUTELY FULL OF SHIT!  I never made a single post about Wesley Clark during my entire time at Daily Kos, not a single one.  And from the moment I began actively supporting him, I made a very conscious decision to stay out of the things like weekly roundups, and even before that I almost never said anything negative about any of the candidates except Lieberman.  And I barely even posted from mid-December through the first week of January, and nothing--barely a comment--for about five full weeks.  

                      No, my offense in the eyes of you and a couple of the other jackals in your pack was that I wouldn't let unfounded insults and attacks on other candidates pass by, and I wouldn't accept the articles of faith you and others occassionally peddled about Howard Dean, especially those comments about the inevatability of his victory. I try to act in ways that would lead others to conclude that I have something you claim I don't, and which your willful refusal to ever provide evidence in your unending, unwarranted and utterly ridiculous and paranoid attacks on my character show that you yourself lack in the extreme: integrity.  In fact, if you actually possessed a shred of honesty and integrity and searched for proof of your paranoid fantasies about me, I'm pretty sure you will not find a single post by me before mid-February that even dealt with the Dem horse-race--Meteor Blades and I even emailed each other about how posting a piece on the Dem nomination battle was a no-win proposition--and when I finally did post something, it was only after it was pretty much clear that Kerry had wrapped it up (post Wisconsin) and Dean had essentially conceded...and it was about Edwards' chances of beating Kerry being pretty much nil.  Your continued failure to ever offer one piece of evidence in your accusations, especially since a look at the record would show the exact opposite of what you assert, shows that you're a lying sack of shit and project onto me the supposed lack of honesty and integrity that actually describes you.

                      [Oh, BTW, I'll bet your don't remember what happened when I finally did my first post about Howard Dean, back in March.  One of your running buddies accussed me of dishonesty, because she "knew all about me," that all along I was working for one of Dean's opponents...Richard Gephardt.  You guys are fucking jokes.]  

                      (Please note that I am polite enough only to point out your official standing with a campaign and your failure to disclose that fact.  I have not and will not go further.  btw - it only took reading another blog for a few minutes and a couple of minutes in Yahoo a year ago to ID you -- but being cautious didn't mention this until you recently dropped another big clue that confirmed it.)
                       

                      So, I was mentioned by name on another blog last December?  Interesting...especially since I've never participated in any other blogs.  (I think I posted a comment one time at Billmon's, and maybe once at Ygelsiais, but both times as DHinMI.)  And when I knew things would be online last December, and I did my own google search, my name was not on any blogs.  I call bullshit.  

                      But here's the real question Marie: why the fuck do you care about me?  What's your obsession?  And why do you spend even 2 minutes on google but not two minutes trying to confirm your facts before you launch into a personal attack against me?  Doesn't it matter to you to get your facts right when personally attacking somebody, when malinging their honesty and integrity?  Don't you give a shit about the consequences of your actions, or the attacks you launch?  Don't you have any interest in being sure of your facts before you personally slander somebody's character?  

                      What the fuck kind of person are you, and why do you worry about MY supposed ethical shortcomings?  Instead of spending soooooooo much fucking time looking for slivers in my eye, why don't you saunter up to a fucking mirror and look at the plank in your own?

                      Jeeze Marie, what an awful, awful human being you appear to be.  Why don't you go get your own fucking life, and get the hell out of mine.

                      •  When the shoe is on the other foot, (none)
                        you can't handle it, can you?

                        Not fun to be piled upon, is it?

                        Since you lack an empathy organ, perhaps by analogy you can understand what it feels like to be the target of your gratuitous character assassinations, DH. Since reasoning with you didn't work, perhaps here you can understand what you make people feel like on the other end of the barrel.

                        For the record, there is probably not a single exchange between Marie and I where we were on the same side of an issue, I she has made her opinion about me clear on many occasions.

                        But, unlike you, I respond to the substance, not the person, and I rate the comment, not the messenger.

                        You are evading the central issue Marie raised, which is the basic accountability of disclosure that is a basic feature of that "integrity" you tout. It is rather disingenuous for you to take the "rules don't apply to me, I'm a good guy, trust me" standard on a site which, among other things, preaches accountability and transparency, and which frequently holds pundits and consultants to account on conflicts of interest - POTENTIAL conflicts of interests, not just already compromised ones.

                        That is what accountability and transparency are all about - creating standards that apply fairly to all and don't require "trusting" individuals to resist abuse when the temptation is there.

                        Thinking back now, I realize that the very first time you and I ever tangled was when I posted a general critique of campaign consultants and their propensity to slice-and-dice us into the flavor du jour, always discovering a new "Soccer Mom" or "NASCAR Dad" just in time to make their analytical services necessary. I suggested that our candidate follow Gore's advice after his debacle, to fire all the consultants and the experts and speak to all Americans from their heart and mind.

                        You reacted unusually visciously to my post, and, in fact, when I asked you if you had any conflict of interest, you REALLY went to town - and you never answered my repeated question about it.

                        Now, we know why.

                        Your hypocrisy doesn't stem from any particular exploitation of this undisclosed connection; your hypocrisy is two-fold - first, that you feign indignation when something you should have disclosed, even denied, turns out to be true; and second, that you are so outraged at the suggestion that your comments should be viewed through the lens of that knowledge about your credibility. The second is even more absurd and reprehensible, considering that you openly boasted of engaging in exactly the same kind of prejudging of a poster's comments just in the past 24 hours.

                        What a sad descent into pathos for someone who seemed to be a leading light at dailykos.

                        "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                        by galiel on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 05:00:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  you might also note (none)
              That I got booted from the front page before I ever got the chance to finish my argument about Wes Clark.  My skepticism was based on his own writing.

              But I note that no one here actually remembers what I said, or has plumbed the archives or my own site.

              •  sure (none)
                The actual thread is hard to find here, and it was a while ago. Glad you commented, though. We needed closure.

                More productive is to follow the link I provided and read your stuff now.

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:39:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Using this diary (none)
            to launch ad hominem attacks on other dailykos members is really reprehensible.

            And the attitude of judging a comment based on your bias toward the comment is not something to be proud of. It merely contributes toward confrontational exchanges and works against reconciliation, understanding and tolerance.

            This community would be far better off if people would read the comment first, rather than check on the commenter. It is certainly legitimate to check on who made the comment to understand if they are a well-known troll or to compare a position taken to a contradictory one made in a recent previous comment, but to prejudge content and to participate in this community by looking at poster first, and then at post, is not at all helpful.

            The content of our ideas should be evaluated and responded to based on their merit, not based on emotional prejudice.

            "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

            by galiel on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:45:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you are speaking to me (none)
              I'm not making an ad homeinim attack on a poster, I am remembering my own experience of a very unpleasant moment at dKos and recounting the actions I took afterwards, which was to grant galiel (you) less respect, energy or benefit of the doubt than I had before that episode. I've done the same thing with many other posters, but the reason your name came up is that someone upthread mentioned that they had been the one who jumped on Melanie's case and my memory of the situation (and my experience of it) was something quite different.

              You have enough of a posting record that people make their own judgements about you.  What my experience is doesn't really matter, and I wouldn't expect it to.  

              As for emotional prejudice, I suppose that's one thing it could be called.  It can also be considered coming to a conclusion based on an action.  That particularly episode with Melanie is an episode that impacted me greatly and I've long felt Melanie got a bum deal and was treated badly by many people, you first and foremost. I raise it now only in the context of a social history, because I think its important for people to see the dKos warts as well as the beauty marks.

              In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

              by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 04:10:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In general (none)
                It is harmful to the community as a whole to make third-person personal attacks on another member.

                It's bad enough where we flame each other. To flame someone in an exchange in which they are not participating is just gratuitously harmful.

                I realize you seem to have no empathy for the people behind the screen names who stumble on a conversation about them here, but you should at least understand the effect such posts have on community discourse.

                A gilas girl, may I say directly to you that I cannot remember a single exchange with you, on any subject, nor can I remember a single exchange of yours with any other member here, in which you have admitted error.

                Clearly, gossiping about another member is not good form and not a helpful community norm. You don't need to think any differently about me, or change your approach toward me in any way to simply say, "you're right, it wasn't appropriate, and it is not a good idea in general for people to do this".

                Also, to refuse to acknowledge the socially constructive value of responding to content rather than messenger is just silly. It seems like you have more of a stake in being right than in being constructive.

                I wish you could put your ego away for a moment and look at the situation objectively as a stakeholder in the community, and evaluate the merits of the substance of my comment rather than responding to me personally.

                That way, you would help be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

                "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                by galiel on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 05:29:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I spend much of my time (none)
                  here admitting error, as I make so many errors.  And I spend a great deal of time trying to put my ego in as small a box as I can find.  Obviously I am not successful.

                  And again I wasn't making a personal attack.  I was recounting an memory of your posting behavior that had a very strong impact on me and my experiences at dKos. That's not a personal attack.  I have not advocated that anyone else make judgements based upon my experience. And I was responding to writer Carl by telling him that he wasn't one who stuck out, even though he admitted that he was one of the crowd.

                  Quite frankly, I don't understand how anything in this post is a response to my post or to this thread, as it has nothing to do with the context of the thread.  I wasn't gossiping nor attacking.  Nor have I "refused to acknowledge the socially constructive value or responding to the content of a message rather than the messenger" because I don't know what the hell you are talking about with that remark.  My entire response to you was about the content of your posts to Melanie and that's what I did respond to. It taught me not to see you as a poster who was particularly interested in discussions or in community.  And I have acted accordingly since then. I have not insulted you or troll rated you ever.  I have taken issue with many things you have said because I have disagreed with them strongly, but that is what I do generally with people I disagree with.  Either that or I ignore them because expressing disagreement isn't worth the time, and the issue isn't important enough to me to express a dissenting or alternative viewpoint.  That's the other thing I do with you.

                  If I seem to have no empathy for the people behind the screen names, then I have failed in my two years here at dKos. Because empathy is what I have strived for almost as often as I have strived to see things from multiple perspectives. In that case it would seem that I have not only made many more errors than I am even capable of recognizing but that Markos has as well. It is certainly worth a bit of my time to reconsider my acceptance of the guest poster position. I've been rather unsure about it anyway.  

                  In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                  by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 06:47:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Trying to clarify (none)
                    Nor have I "refused to acknowledge the socially constructive value or responding to the content of a message rather than the messenger" because I don't know what the hell you are talking about with that remark.

                    I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

                    You used the words "I" "me" and "my" more than twenty-five  times in the comment I am responding to.

                    You didn't use the word "we" even once.

                    My whole point was about us as a community, and which behaviors we engage in as individuals are constructive, and which is not.

                    I wish you would put aside your personal issues and join me in saying that the community would benefit if people a) responded to substance, rather than judging the messenger, and b) would refrain from speaking disparagingly in the third-party about other members. I fail to see what is so complicated or difficult about that.

                    "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place" - Albert Einstein

                    by galiel on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 07:17:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I still don't understand what you are talking abou (none)
                      I don't know how to be plainer.  

                      Yes I used "I" and "me" because I was talking about me.  To use "we" in that instance would be presumptuous.  At least in the world where I was raised.  I use the first person often, even when I am doing social science research, because the use of plurals or even dispassionate third person (or passive) language creates a certainty that I find is often overstated. I use it here because, as someone who's belief system lies outside the consensus or critical mass viewpoints of the dKos (in the very vague ways which that can be ascertained, also with degrees of uncertainty), I'm aware of how what it looks like to me is contingent upon that position of outside the frame.  When its warranted (or when I believe it it is warranted, sometimes I"m wrong) I will use the plural, but I'm careful not to force that where it might be inappropriate. You posted something about me, I responded to that post. There wasn't anything in it about the community, except in the way that your rather formalized and disconnected discussions about community are woven throughout everything you post. Your discussions of community are so far afield from my own understanding of them, my experience of them or my ideals of them, that I generally just don't engage them.  To be quite honest, most of the time I don't really know what you are talking about because you address it at a level of abstraction that renders it relatively meaningless to me.  There are others who function at that level of abstraction far better than I and I leave it up to them, aware of those limitation of mine.

                      If you didn't want me to talk about me when you posted your second to last post, then I misread it. And now I'm even more embarrassed than I was before.  Because if it is true that post wasn't about me, then your accusations of my egotism and egoism is quite true: altho I suspect that narcicissm is probably the more accurate diagnosis in that case.

                      I don't get what you are talking about so there's probably no point in continuing the exchange. Besides, I have some thinking to do, obviously.

                      In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

                      by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 08:08:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  AGG (none)
                    Lady, is this guy bothering you?

                    Listen, he's full of shit and I'm tired of his harping on you. You are as empathic as this medium can convey, and I, for one, want very much for you to speak out. The clarity and civility with which you have presented your case, shared your feelings about past events and now, even question whether you can be comfortable here ARE the reasons why you have been chosen and why I speak out in support.

                    You haven't been around as much in the last few months, it seemed to me, so I was very glad to see you become a first-stringer.

                    Besides, I've always had a crush on you ever since I thought you were a woman living in the Gila Mountains.

                    don't always believe what you think

                    by claude on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 09:28:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Melanie (none)
      Melanie left when people complained about the religious content in her front-page posts... She now has a fine solo blog and contributes to several group blogs.

      Gotta link?

      "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people... it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

      by KSKathy on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:56:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  RonK (none)
      If I recall correctly the RonK controversy started when RonK began to suggest that Dean's attendance numbers from the Sleepless Summer Tour were vastly inflated.

      From Baltimore County? Volunteer for the local party!

      by Lavoisier1794 on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 04:07:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's my memory as well. (none)
        I never understood how it could have become so serious based on what it began with.  But I didn't follow those things all that closely, so I'm not very well informed.

        In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

        by a gilas girl on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 04:12:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (70)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Culture (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Memorial Day (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site