Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site