Skip to main content

View Diary: Ramona Kitzinger, member of Waukesha Board of Canvassers, Speaks Up (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  With all due respect, there is a long history here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa

    - before your arrival - about not spouting off with truly whack-job CT stuff.  Back before DK was the Great Orange Satan, kos wanted us to look respectable (heh).

    So hardcore CT stuff - specifically, 9-11 stuff (remote controlled planes, demo charges in Twin Towers, Cheney personally drugged the airline pilots, etc) - would get you banned.

    The FAQ stated 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' or something to that effect.  That is what peeps are referring to; some ABSOLUTE rules linger in our limbic systems long after the beatings stopped.

    Sooooo...only a complete tool, or a complete idiot Newer User would claim:

    Only a complete tool, or a complete idiot would claim that election fraud is somehow extraordinary.

    as it relates to diaries HERE.

    Next week's class:  How we used to rate comments back in the day and that a**hole Nyberg and his damn threes!

    The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

    by JVolvo on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:01:13 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Conspiracy is a legal claim requiring legal proof (3+ / 0-)

      Scientific proof should be restricted to science, and formal logical proof restricted to philosophy.  Only legal proof matters with a crime.

      To prove conspiracy you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was 1) An agreement to commit a crime, and 2) an overt step taken by at least one party in furtherance of the agreement.  That's it.

      3) The existence of the agreement may be inferred from the acts of the parties.  Many have trouble with the idea that behavior can be sufficient evidence from which to make inferences that prove an essential element of a crime.  The rationale is that conspiracies are so dangerous and so hard to prove otherwise that this is allowed.  For that reason also, conspiracies risk the same punishment as the crime agreed to, even if it didn't go further than that one step.

      4) All parties do not have to know of or agree to the step that was taken, that is one reason how "all these people could be involved and keep a secret".

      The scientific extraordinary claims/extraordinary proof meme was originally applied to claims of the paranormal, demanding verifiable, measurable, reproducible data.  Scientific proof is not appropriate to questions of law, except in the testimony of expert witnesses where needed.

      Shutting down inquiry while there are still questions only gives those questions eternal life.  It is much better to try to answer all the questions and put them to rest, than dismiss them as the fevered hallucinations of conspiracy theorists.

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:33:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      avadoria

      I don't care about the history of Daily Kos. My argument is independent of that history.

      CT is used as a pejorative to dismiss enquiry. In some cases this is well deserved. But not vote rigging.

      •  Well, since you're railing against the SOP re (0+ / 0-)

        CT On.This.Blog. it might help you to know the rules Of.This.Blog. as you argue about it On.This.Blog.

        FAQ Section 4.5.5

        Controversial Diary Topics

        Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

        Addendum

        Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned. Yes, this does include 'controlled demolition' of WTC 7.

        But, what about Freedom of Speech?

        Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

        No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

        Controversial 9/11 Diaries

        DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

           1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
           2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.

        Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.

        You not liking the rules here may not end well for you, depending on how you handle it.

        The highly suspect situation in Waukesha is definitely fair game for vigorous discussion and analysis.  The point above was someone stated "Fraud."  As much as I want the "Waukesha Miracle" to be unwound and the perpetrator(s) found guilty and convicted, we're not there yet.  Someone howling "Fraud!" at this juncture is premature: we don't have evidence.

        The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

        by JVolvo on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:27:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Not end well for you"? (0+ / 0-)

          That sounds a little ... inappropriate?  

          Since I've been here a lot longer than you, as you stated, maybe I know enough about how I need to act to hang around.

          Would Ramona have felt the need to make this clarification if there weren't hundreds of people like me out there shouting that something stinks?  I think not.  Now, let's turn that around - what if most of the comments were saying well yeah it looks a little odd, but the clerk's explanation seems reasonable so let's not make any wild accusations.  Would Ramona have felt the need to clarify then?  Because it did take some guts for her to lay it out there like that, and I doubt she enjoyed it and did it just cause she felt chatty.

          Any relevant, credible fact that tends to support one side over the other is evidence.    So there is evidence already that would tend to support a fraud case, the question is, is it enough evidence to do anything with.  Not yet, but it's still a live controversy and pressure is needed to keep surfacing more evidence.  You don't pressure people by believing what they say at face value and requiring a case to be proven before beginning the investigation.

          I'm not trying to be pedantic here.  When bullies shout down people saying there's no evidence, unless the other side is ok with shouting back, it tends to shut down the conversation.  Get enough of it, it tends to shut down inquiry.  And we certainly don't want that to happen. Because then there wouldn't be any additional evidence that comes to light later.

          Now, I've been civil with my comments.  As a longtime member here, I highly recommend it.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 03:28:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  please use the "Parent" feature. My comment (0+ / 0-)

            was to #291549 Happy Rockefeller and his/her

            I don't care about the history of Daily Kos.

            hence my

            You not liking the rules here may not end well for you, depending on how you handle it.

            "D'oh!  :o)

            I'm with you.  Civility is always best.  Unless you're with the (xyz) faction that I can't stand...

            Kidding.  All is well.   Peace and All Votes Counted ~ JV

            The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

            by JVolvo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:52:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site