Skip to main content

View Diary: Please Ban me from Daily Kos (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No I won't (0+ / 0-)

    And thus far, at least seven people seem to agree with me.

    Why don't you address my substantive points?

    If the point of the policy is to prevent DKos from being associated with "conspiracy theories" I quite agree. And I want to great lengths to dissociate myself from that view.

    If the point of the policy is to prevent critical discussion/examination of the role of the CIA in International Affairs, then the policy is poorly thought out.

    Whoever read my diary either lacked reading comprehension skills, or wants to apply the policy in a way that chills a discussion this country really needs to have.

    If you don't like what i write, don't read it or HR it, if you can't be bothered making a substantive response.

    •  you (3+ / 0-)

      neglect to point out that your comments in the other diary invoked LIHOP:

      Is it too implausible to think someone in Mossad might, if the opportunity presented it, allow such an operation like this to proceed?

      Is it implausible that U.S. intelligence agencies got "burned"? Is it possible someone allowed it to happen? Why not?

      LIHOP is forbidden on this site. If you're interested in gibbering about LIHOP, perhaps you'd be more at home with the knuckledraggers at Prison Planet. You can jabber about FEMA camps there, too.

      •  what does the (12+ / 0-)

        Lancaster International House of Pancakes have to do with anything?

        Break the Cornspiracy! Eat grass-fed.

        by ubertar on Sun May 30, 2010 at 06:58:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are distorting (0+ / 0-)

        when I linked to my comments, I thought I was linking to all and certainly provided context.

        Rather than level insults like "knuckle dragger" why not address the issues.

        If expressing the possibility that they "let it happen" is sufficient to be construed as a violation of the policy, then so be it. Though for the record, I did not say that.

        Exactly what part of what I did say is IYO "knuckle dragging"?

        My point, though it is clearly beyond you, is as much epistemological as it is empirical. What makes a question count automatically as unworthy of consideration in the social sciences?

        What I want is for someone to explain to me just exactly what the narrative is that can be referred to here on Daily Kos.

        •  Actually. (4+ / 0-)

          I think you are just a whack job with a full vocabulary, and I don't give a rat's ___ whether you get banned or not.

          Of course, we too reserve the right to point out to you that it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even whatever you are, to figure out that the basis for 9/11 is rooted in decades old geo-political conflict and provocation in the Middle East. In fact, who here or anywhere else disputes this? What you fail to recognize, it appears, is that in this good ol' USA, neo-cons and today's MSM have to boil concepts like that down to a tag line and a sound byte for the average 'Merrrcan to even think about it, and thus "They hate us for our freedoms" was born.

          Your points don't bother me. Not one bit. I think they're fine. Your smug, holier than thou, pontificating, condescending, self-righteous tone sure does, though, and for that I say

          F-A-L-M-E

          Good day, sir.

          P.S.: If Kos really wanted to ban you for your "creative ideas", he would already have done so. I firmly believe you are much less relevant, important or timeworthy to him than you give yourself credit for.

        •  no point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gemina13, Observerinvancouver

          you make is beyond me. That's not possible.

          Anyone who writes

          Is it too implausible to think someone in Mossad might, if the opportunity presented it, allow such an operation like this to proceed?

          Is it implausible that U.S. intelligence agencies got "burned"? Is it possible someone allowed it to happen? Why not?

          drags their knuckles when they walk. I'm sorry for you. Hopefully you're young, and have time to evolve.

          Last time I checked this thread, numerous people had "explain[ed] to [you] just exactly what the narrative is that can be referred to here on Daily Kos." You seem not to be able to get it. Eschew MIHOP and LIHOP, and you'll be fine. If you are possessed of an irresistible impulse to go there, well, you'll have to go there somewhere else.

          •  you refuse to address the issue (0+ / 0-)

            and yet continue to call names.

            Actually, the point apparently cannot be pursued. So you are free to call names and any effort I make to clarify will simply get labeled "LIHOP".

            My question is "what makes a question-by it's very nature-one that should be rejected as not "reality based"?

            The CIA was involved in the roots of AQ, had connections with Pakistani intelligence and the U.S. government had a memo that said "AQ determined to strike in the U.S."

            Yet the U.S. government did everything it possibly could to stop the attacks and anyone who thinks that there are questions that need to be addressed must be a "crazy" , a "wacko" a "knuckle dragger" and that sentiment must not be expressed on DKOS.

            For the record, I went to some lengths to dissociate myself from the wildly improbably theses.

        •  Saying "They let it happen" (0+ / 0-)
          Will certianly get you banned. I think the original comment you linked should not, but suggesting the government had any foreknowledge of that specific attack pussed the button here.

          Perhaps you could reply to the warning and ask why, specifically were the comments and why they violate policy.

          Since the FAQ are general, I think that's a reasonsable question.

          "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

          by koNko on Sun May 30, 2010 at 10:31:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sigh. Okay (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Gemina13

      I'll draft a substantive comment.

      (But I'll probably get my own ass banned.)

      ::
      The Pluto Chronicles. You want reality? You can't handle reality!

      by Pluto on Sun May 30, 2010 at 06:51:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have been here long enough to... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, Pluto, koNko, blueness, jnhobbs, DontTaseMeBro

      ...have read the FAQ on this subject. A year ago and you would have been banned summarily. Since June 2009, we have given people a single warning on the subject before banning.

      If the point of the policy is to prevent critical discussion/examination of the role of the CIA in International Affairs, then the policy is poorly thought out.

      Utter nonsense. You were warned for engaging in LIHOP, a specifically forbidden arena of discussion regarding 9/11. But nobody has ever been banned for engaging in a critical discussion of the the role of the CIA in international affairs. Otherwise, to give just two examples, I would have been banned when I wrote this and this.

      I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun May 30, 2010 at 08:26:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it were only one comment (0+ / 0-)

        along those lines, I would argue with you. In isolation, the diarist's 9/11-related comments are individually not that bad, and for any particular one one could argue whether or not he's satisfying the "OP" element of LIHOP.

        But there's a pattern here - a pattern of dancing aroudn the edges of LIHOP without actually quite saying it. He's said the same thing in enough different ways that it's quite clear that it's not just a case of ill-advised or misleading choice of words - he's dancing around LIHOP OP.

        Every horror committed by man begins with the lie that some man is not a man. - Jyrinx

        by kyril on Sun May 30, 2010 at 08:58:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse my ignorance (0+ / 0-)
        But what is LIHOP?

        And should this be sdded to the text concering CT and 911 so it's more clear?

        I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm sonmeone who try to follow the FAQ and occasionally directs others to them, but some things are unclear and unless a mere mentions of 911 that challanges the staus quo is banable (I doubt that's the case) then perhpas it would be best to be more clear about what is.

        "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

        by koNko on Sun May 30, 2010 at 10:40:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LIHOP means (0+ / 0-)

          "let it happen on purpose" and MIHOP means "made it happen on purpose."

          Don't know if you will see this, but wanted to answer your question just in case.

          "Help!!! I'm being Enlightened!" - TCFKNCS's avatar

          I always wanted to quote an avatar.

          by RhymesWithUrple on Mon May 31, 2010 at 08:38:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  When I read this (0+ / 0-)

      The idea that some person or persons within the security structure of the U.S. "looked the other way" is not documented. It should not be rejected out of hand either.

      I knew exactly why you got warned. LIHOP is a no-no.

      Surely you remember the wave of truther insanity that engulfed this site?

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sun May 30, 2010 at 08:51:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site