Ohio, frontpagers and piranhas

Years ago I had a roommate with several piranha. We didn't own a TV, so weekly live feeding time was a form of entertainment for us. One of the things I noticed was the presence of a strict pecking order. The largest, and I assume the group's "alpha" piranha, always had to make the first strike. What stood out to me though was when the alpha piranha wasn't as hungry as the rest and was thus reluctant to make the opening kill the other piranha wouldn't go around the pecking order and kill their own, they would literally start taking bites out of the alpha piranha until he started the feeding.

And now I'm seeing the same dynamic between Kossians and the Front Pagers over the Votergate2004 issues.

I don't normally do diaries as they scroll by so fast that threaded comments have a better half-life, but a comment I was drafting as a response to DHinMI in a thread here was getting to long and narrow for the page, it's a general topic of obvious interest to many here and finally because I'm checking out after this for the new year (burnt out -- someone wake me when I can trust my vote counts). And so but, here we are.

On a tit for tat level concerning the growing adversarial stances between the front pagers and everyone else over election fraud (irregularities, whatever) related issues, and how the front pagers are or are not properly covering it, DHinMI was not unjustifiable going off on me here for blurring the distinctions in my response to him as an individual and him as a representative of this new class of Kossian, the Frontpagers, and many people's perceptions of their handling of the election issue.

But for you, Thumb, to accuse me of ignoring the voting machine issue is really something that reflects very, very poorly on you,

My response is that what I said specifically was, "Where I feel you, and by extension the rest of the front-page posters, have denigrated the desires of many of us calling for a complete examination is by your downplaying the [potential] involvement of the activist partisans controlling our vote counting in light of the serious irregularities being extolled on the diaries." First, that's a far cry different from "ignore." Though I do appreciate that DHinMI gave the issue a front page post, I don't think "downplay" is inaccurate considering he closed his argument with a defense of partisan monopoly control over our election tabulations and proposed a solution with a likelihood of happening approaching zero. To wit:

So I doubt the idea can be easily dismissed without some explanation of how a monopoly in the voting machine industry would be illegal but the monopolies of weapons and vaccination producers is not.

So, Mr. Soros and others with wealth in the billions, how about buying those voting machine companies?

In other words, the issue was covered, bringing light upon the situation but absolutely no heat. Then, from high on saddle, he continues:

I think that in general, and certainly regarding me, and certainly coming from you, Thumb, the complaint that I have failed to address the issue of ownership of the companies who produce the various technology used in registering and tabulating votes, is unfounded, unfair and discrediting to your espoused cause.

Again, I may have floated freely between addressing DHinMI the individual and frontpagers in general, yet his idea of "addressing the issue" consisted of, in his own words,

"This solution, glib though it may be, would take away one of the biggest suspicions--and at this point, it hasn't been proven to be anything more than a suspicion--that the manufacturers of these systems are rigging things."

Much like I said to Hunter after his satirical parody Dear Frontpagers, You Suck, Uh, thanks for  . . . something.  

Such a statement certainly sounds to me like "downplaying the [potential] involvement of the activist partisans" that DhinMI  takes such umbrage over the accusation of. It's as if DhinMI, and by extension the rest of the front pagers, are trying to sound like the NYTs. It looks to me as if the front page is doing with the issue what the "liberal" media does to us all the time -- cover a story once or twice, inside page, and make certain to place the contrarian argument prominently. This is why Front Pagers are feeling the heat and frustrations they're feeling, when the issue is covered it comes with enough disclaimers, counter arguments and proper "frames" to make a SCLM journalist proud.

We're supposed to be the activists here. We're supposed to be the ones saying, no, make that SHOUTING that partisan control over our vote tabulations is wholly unacceptable. Period. These partisans and those in their employ (ES&S, Sequoia, Triad and Diebold) should not get the benefit of the doubt and we shouldn't have to wait for a smoking gun before we take action toward transparent elections. The burden of proof to prove either the exit polls wrong or the "conspiracy" national in scale shouldn't be on our shoulders, the burden of proof falls on the partisan activists that have purchased, and are paid millions of dollars for, their oligopoly over our vote tabulations. The fact that we have any serious statistical irregularities on which to hang our hats should be the drumbeat we use to generate the controversy needed to get the issue of activist control over our elections wider exposure and serious investigation (and, more likely than not, it happens in that order). Instead what we see from our "leaders" can be summed up in this recent email exchange from [another prominent front pager who can come forward if he so wishes]:

[T]he Ohio conspiracists have done more to paint [DailyKos] as "far-left wacko" than any of the front-page bloggers. If [unnamed front pager is] ruining the site for that crowd, I won't worry too much. The cause for legitimate electoral reform has been grievously hurt by those who continue to insist Kerry won Ohio against all evidence. Electoral reform should never have been a partisan issue, but this crowd insists on making it so, and it will have negative consequences for years to come.

And to think I started coming here because I was sick of the MSM's aversion to covering GOP malfeasance because of the fear of looking "far-left wacko." Now it seems I'm a part of the "Michael Moore" wing of the DailyKos crowd because I've allowed myself to view a campaign to stop partisan activists from counting our votes in private as a partisan issue. I guess if I understand this correctly the path to electoral reform is to sneek up on them and remove their structural bias under the cover of nonpartisanship. Sure, like they'll never see us coming if we're polite and non-shrill and disavow the "far-left" among us along the way. And that's been working for us and against the Right for how long now?

In closing, continuing from my exchange with DHinMI:

You personally have certainly not made all or even most of those accusations [of the front pagers snubbing Votergate].  But many have, and when even a more respectful interlocutor like yourself can, probably unwittingly, perpetuate the inaccurate and unfair beliefs that I do not sufficeintly care about voting integrity or that I would try to shut up people who raise concerns about partisans in the vote counting process, it should provide you with something to think about concerning why you may feel that the sceptics among us seem increasingly impatient with those who feel we err not believing with your fervor that Kerry won but Bush stole the election.

Which brings us back to my roommate's piranhas. After the 2000 election fiasco, we, the rabble in the tank, are growing hungry for electoral reform. We feel there is no greater issue facing us as an opposition party with any hope of retaking either the House, Senate or White House. What we want is some real leadership on the issue from our leaders. We want front pagers to use their valuable real estate to put the right-wing on the defensive over voting integrity, not the "far-left wacko" that talks about fraud and irregularities and whether or not an intertwined network of Republican activists running state elections and vote tabulators constitutes an actual conspiracy or merely a potential conspiracy, or whether Bush actually stole the election or simply could have stolen the election. We want to be updated on the Conyers hearings and Arnebeck's filings. We want fresh meat we can go to our conservative co-worker or family member with and say, "Can you believe this . . ." and make them feel out-of-the-loop. We want to know in real time which organizations and representatives are doing what to help, or thwart, the cause of electoral reform and what we can do on the ground to either prod them along or derail them. We want to stop tiptoeing about the issue because "conspiracies" dilute the cause of reform or falling back on the diaries to do the post-election coverage.

Instead of leading a feeding frenzy encompassing the whole issue of elections in our democracy and putting the Republicans on the [deserved] defensive over their monopoly over vote tabulation we're instead being led by self-admitted skeptics doing our opponent's work of pointing out and alienating our fringe fighters while refocusing the issue on the minutiae of our arguments to the exclusion of the greater issue of single-party control over our elections.

Chomp.

•  Dependency

  This is a grassroots movement. The idea is not to depend on DHinMI, kos, KO, or anybody else to craft your message. The idea is that if you are knowledgable about a topic and you want to see it discussed, you need to diary about it yourself.

  The mistake you're making is you see these pages as a top-down structure where the leadership takes suggestions from you and then calls the shots. But that is not how it works here.

  The idea on these pages is to educate yourself, develop your views, and articulate them to the kos public. You are just as responsible as myself, kos, or anybody else for developing your views. The only thing kos is responsible for is providing us with pages to present our views to 40,000 other progressives.

  by Eternal Hope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:39:28 PM PDT

  •  That argument has been made before

    but I believe Thumb's is stronger.

    by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:43:52 PM PDT

    •  But think about how terribly sad that is.

      And think about what it means with respect to gauging the real value of dKos, and the values kos himself hopes to promote with it.

      That won't make it any less true in your mind. But it might just say something vital about what has come to be known as the "netroots." What if it's just another traditional constituency group that just happens to organize itself virtually, and really holds no more or greater promise than any other affinity group ever did, despite the revolutionary rhetoric?

      Of course, I still believe that the facts will show that a top-rated diary lasts longer on the front page and generates more comments than most front page stories, so I still have a little wiggle room within which to save the netroots theory.

      by Kagro X on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:50:29 PM PDT

      •  See Thumb's comment below.

        Re: Greater legitimacy, group cohesion, symbiotic, etc, very valid points.

        Also, the argument that highly rated diaries may or may not last longer or possibly generate more comments doesn't actually mean anything.  It does not speak at all to:
        total number of 'hits',
        total number of unique viewership (not just core Kos regulars) who are very aware of diaries,
        total number of upper-eschelon/key players viewership (political figures, media members, etc).

        When I google for phrases from dailykos so that I can easily find a link, I often find OTHER sites speaking about and discussing issues raised on the dailykos front page.  I've rarely seen someone/other websites say 'didja see that rec'd diary by Milhouse774, whaddya think of that, we really need to do something about that.'

        by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:22:17 PM PDT

        •  All true. But I have yet to see Thumb's comment.

          They do rarely talk about what's in the diaries unless it makes the front page.

          But if they're not talking about it either, is that because kos isn't, or because they themselves choose not to?

          I've rarely seen anyone blog about how they won't blog about something because they see that someone else is also not blogging about it. So I don't know for sure.

          But I would also imagine that it'd be a rare thing to see someone say that they're blogging about something that kos blogged about even though he didn't sound like he cared about it much, and was only doing it to quell dissent.

          by Kagro X on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:42:16 PM PDT

        •  OK, I have seen Thumb's comment below.

          I'm sticking with yours.

          I'm not terribly convinced by the Mac formatting argument, though it's not at all what Thumb is hanging his hat on.

          He hints at the same thing you say, though -- that other bloggers don't blog about what's in the diaries here.

          That's still true. I can't dismiss that.

          I think that's starting to change somewhat, though, at least for this issue. I can't say for sure, however, whether that's the product of this issue's own weight, or whether it's being blogged by others precisely because they know about it and are frustrated at not having seen it covered on the "official" front page.

          Still, there's this issue of lingering suspicion created by the reluctance of the "elite bloggers" to address the issue, which is the basis of the piranha theory. I'm sure there's an element of truth to it, but as I said above, that's pretty sad. Bloggers are pretty much just a bunch of garden variety amateur political junkies. The "elite" ones have built a constituency over time, but that's something that's very much available to any one of you to build for yourselves. In fact, the greater the truth of your complaint that there's a critical mass of readers demanding such coverage, the easier it should be for you to find that constituency.

          But you're not doing it.

          What's still startling to me is the frequency with which I see the AP, The NYT, and other bastions of the SCLM being threatened by Kossacks with extinction -- a natural outgrowth, as they see it, of consistently failing to give the people the open, honest and unbiased coverage they demand. This, they believe, is ultimately within their power.

          But starting their own blog with free software,  a $9.95 domain name, and a cadre of like-minded individuals among whose company they feel quite comfortable daily attacking their former heroes, apparently, is not.

          by Kagro X on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:26:10 PM PDT

          •  Kagro / Ct / DinMI

            I won't recharacterize Thumb's point.  What I will say is that I have read the same sentiments from dozens of others appearing in process diaries like this and in topical diaries where they were responding to process comments from the skeptics (?) and no one, or at least no single diary or comment, has yet captured the essence of the irritation and in some cases anger which many feel toward (I don't want to say you guys) the actions of the skeptics in first rejecting the requests for an early front page "clarion call" over election issues and later (a very distinct and often missed source of animosity) interjecting process issues or process critiques into topic election investigation diaries.  

            I won't try to be the first to encapsulate all of that emotion.  What should be said is that in addressing these diarists and commentators in a debating style, I think the essence of their objections and feeling are being missed.  As I generally view the blogs as a more forceful tool for organizing than for either policy discussion or directly influencing MSM, I never fully subscribed to the view that a dKos clarion call would be a meaningful event.  OTOH, I felt that the dKos infrastructure could have impacted the ability of the 'roots to organize and effectively lobby on this issue and I felt that hope crushed by the enormous amount of time which diarists and others spent responding to process comments from a group of either kos appointed or self appointed referrees.  Indeed, when seeing a new OH I have at times wondered aloud: "who's on this shift" while waiting to see the first skeptical comment.  

            I honestly felt that many of these folks and their comments were intended to waste and disappate my, and other's, energies.  That may sound bizzare to some, but a large portion of the political world is populated by lawyers, and defense lawyers spend most of their lives engaged in the process of wasting time so that other's can't present their case -- it was a familar feeling.  Let me say this, I am not trying to convince you folks or anyone else for that mattter, that you were out to waste anyone's time.  What I am trying to convey to you is the feeling.  By my read of the election diaries it is pervasive and is certainly undermining this community.

            Someting to consider.

            Mambo

            by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:51:53 PM PDT

            •  You have captured much of what

              I felt in the initial days post-election and the ensuing weeks.  And also what I felt in all those process diaries and all that sickening soapboxing that I thought was a huge misdirection of energy and time, and was insulting after awhile.

              by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:15:10 PM PDT

            •  Can't You Consider The Possibility...

              ...that, despite the best intentions, we're just simply not convinced?  Why does it always have to be about sentiment, or feelings, or people?  Couldn't it just be that the argument is weak, and that's why almost nobody outside of a few blogs is pushing the theory?  

              by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:22:04 PM PDT

              •  Listen, you won

                I just asked you to think.  Apparently, you declined.

                Mambo

                by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:33:36 PM PDT

                •  See, There You Go

                  The problem isn't with the evidence or presentation, it's that I didn't think.  

                  Good luck ever accomplishing something in politics thinking the reason you didn't succeed in your goal was simply that people didn't think.  

                  by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:50:45 PM PDT

                  •  yup

                    The problem isn't with the evidence or presentation, it's that I didn't think.

                    Exactly.  I made a specific point, in a process diary, about the character of the discussion and a specific issue which I felt you and others have missed.  From your response, it appeared to me that you didn't even think about what I said which had nothing to do with "right or wrong" but with the charater of the discussion and with the health of the community here at dkos.  Instead, you want to talk about evidence -- evidence diary you want process, process diary you want evidence and all the time mischarectarization: "why does it always have to be about feelings . . .?"  In fact, I've never posted about my or anyone else's "feelings" about the issue.  Why the straw man, hyperbole and mischaraterization, not to mention the ad hominem attack?

                    You might want to re-read some of the insults you have posted in just the past few hours before commenting on other's political skills.

                    I offered you an insight -- take it leave it.  frankly there's not much to argue over here.

                    Mambo  
                    

                    by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:04:39 PM PDT

                    •  Feelings

                      In fact, I've never posted about my or anyone else's "feelings" about the issue.  Why the straw man, hyperbole and mischaraterization, not to mention the ad hominem attack?

                      Let me say this, I am not trying to convince you folks or anyone else for that mattter, that you were out to waste anyone's time.  What I am trying to convey to you is the feeling.

                      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:12:24 PM PDT

          •  It's like telling people if they don't like

            the Democratic Party, then go start their own party.  The analogy is a bit extreme and doesn't fit perfectly, but I think it does a reasonable job.

            It feels good for the people to tell other people to do those things (start their own party, create their own blog, "Junior, in America, anything is possible!  Go get em' boy!  Off you go!") and it may make the people who say those things feel all warm and fuzzy, but in reality, we all know it doesn't work quite that way in real life (I'm not disputing the monetary or other costs involved in starting a blog).  Sure, I could win two lotteries consecutively and climb Mount Everest while fighting off a pack of mountain lions and get a 5% chance of getting 10% of this blog's constituancy, but it's pretty damn hard and there is a chance for critical short-term action.  And many feel that, just like Democratic Party leaders ignore issues, that certain issues that are critical to the country are being grievously underrepresented by leaders with a large constituancy that could take important short-term action and get much attention and perhaps achieve more results.

            Many of the frustrations involve our side's view being misunderstood and misrepresented by the other side (gawd, I'm sick of this whole sides business) and being made fun of, at a critical, transitionary period for our country.

            by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:05:34 PM PDT

            •  Nope

              It's like telling people if they don't like the Democratic party, then figure out how to take it over.

              Learning process and doing things for oneself, or being bitter because you're not being led where you want to go.  

              Face it, where we're at is myself and others haven't been convinced that Kerry won the election, and that frustrates a lot of people because they want us to believe what they believe.  But it may not be that we're obtuse, or obstructionists, or insincere, or--my favorite--whores paid by the GOP.  Maybe the advocates of fraud as the explanation for the reported results are either:

              A. Not persuasive, and/or
              B. Advocating a weak case.

              But instead, it so often gets personalized, that we as people are or are not doing something to other people.  It's almost never considered that the case isn't persuasive.  

              by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:18:27 PM PDT

              •  Oh my god.

                You still think that this is about Kerry winning or losing the election.  Wow.  Just wow.  I mean how many times have I, and our "side", explained ourselves.

                It is very, very likely that Bush won the election.  But I don't fucking know.  Our side does not fucking know!  It is because of the state of our democracy that we don't fucking know.

                At this point, I don't give a frick who won the election (well, that's a lie).

                All I care about is improving our democracy effectively and expeditiously (note the expeditious part), and organizing large constituencies (that already exist) for action.  Not wasting our time hedging back and forth over whether or not to investigate, and just how high should that darn proof bar be.  Some nasty shit happened before, during, and after this election.  It's in georgia10's response to the challenge.  The excitement surrounding the document is not at all about getting Kerry to win, or whatever - it's organizing the massive corruption and shit that went on, the weakness of this unauditable democracy, the suppression, and everything else.

                by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:09:22 PM PDT

                •  Then Why Are You Responding To Me?

                  Maybe the advocates of fraud as the explanation for the reported results are either...

                  So, that's not you?  I didn't say that was you in my comment, so why are you assuming that I lump you in to that category?  I honestly didn't know if you think Kerry won but Bush stole the election, which is why I was careful to write that highlighted sentence as it's written.  Now there's no way you can deny that there are many very vocal people who assert that Kerry did win, or attack somebody who asserts that it's highly likely that Bush got more votes without conceding the point that our election system sucks.  So, I'm not making up some strawman.  

                  Are "you" and "your side" the same thing?  If so, then in this comment you're lying, because many people on "your side" have explained yourselves to mean that you do think Kerry got more votes than Bush and won the electoral college.  But I'll take you at your word and assume that you don't adhere to that strict position that Bush stole the election.  Doing so forces me to separate out you from others who hold beliefs different than yours.  I don't think it's asking too much for you to do the same regarding me and the whole cluster of beliefs I hold regarding this election, past elections, our voting system, and what should be done in the future.  

                  by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:21:26 PM PDT

                  •  I was responding to this specifically.

                    ...where we're at is myself and others haven't been convinced that Kerry won the election, and that frustrates a lot of people because they want us to believe what they believe.

                    Here is a comment by emal that summarizes a lot of the views, anger, and frustration.

                    by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:28:48 PM PDT

                    •  Well, Again...

                      ...why do you assume that those people who, to quote emal, "are interested in this issue?"  I knew about this shit with the voting machines before the 2000 election; I managed a down-ballot race and we discovered that types of voting machines have a tremendous effect on the number of undervotes.  For instance, some optical scans have an average of 15% undervotes if voters have to flip over the ballot.  I knew about chads.  And I've even worked with some legislators about having a listing of voters' rights posted at each polling site the way workplaces are required to post notices from the EEOC or OSHA.  

                      So, what exactly makes you think I don't take the concerns of fair votes seriously?  The only thing that anyone could see on these threads that "debunks" are the suggestions or assertions that "the vote was hacked."  Why do people think I don't take the rest of it seriously?

                      I think it says less about me and the others derided as sceptics and a lot more about those doing the deriding or feeling that they're not being heard.  

                      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:36:23 PM PDT

                      •  I can't vouch for everything emal said

                        in the comment.  He did, though, make a lot of good points and summed up some of the feelings involved.

                        by HariSeldon on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:49:23 PM PDT

                    •  Typo

                      ...why do you assume I'm not one of those people who...

                      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:37:53 PM PDT

                      •  Because

                        you seem to spend a lot more time and energy fighting against "those people" as opposed to fighting for.

                        by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:47:49 AM PDT

                        •  Fighting?

                          How about not agreeing with them on the idea that Kerry actually won Ohio and/or the popular vote?

                          If I don't accept or stay silent about the more extreme claims, I'm treating them as the enemy or I'm fighting with them?

                          Couldn't the converse be said about you?

                          by DHinMI on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:13:09 AM PDT

                          •  Considering that

                            it really is impossible to know for certain if Kerry did or did not win, a simple agree to disagree would go further than the amount of effort you put into proving believers wrong.

                            by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:19:56 AM PDT

            •  To me, it's like...

              what I told the Nader people.

              If you want into the debates and onto the ballot, get the signatures. You say people support you, so go gather them up and prove it.

              No, it reality, getting into the debates and onto the ballot wouldn't really give Ralph Nader a serious chance at winning election (though he'll tell you it will, right up until the point that he actually gets on, at which point he'll immediately start lowering your expectations and claiming he's running for symbolic purposes, but I think that's beside the point).

              But while the reality is not fair, neither is the notion that we should all step aside and hand the mechanism we've built over to Ralph in the name of fairness. Or whatever you want to call it.

              As you acknowledge, the analogy is less than perfect. Kos has built this thing more or less by himself, and has perhaps a greater claim to it than members of the Democratic Party have to their organization. But so much the better for the argument that he needn't make way for others.

              by Kagro X on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:34:02 PM PDT

  •  My problem with relying on diaries

    is that many people don't read them. I wouldn't have thought this was so but two weeks ago I was at a party in our building and talking to the host, a retired laywer. I was pleasantly surprised when I commented about this new thing called the Blogs and he said he reads them all the time. He brings me to his computer and he shows me his links to Kos, Josh, Howler, Atrios, etc.

    When we opened up Kos (he's on a Macintosh) I was surprised to see how different the site looked. I asked him what he though about Ohio and he basically said, "What about Ohio?" We had to dig to find the Recommended Diaries. He had never looked at them though he's a regular reader and didn't know anything was amiss with the vote in Ohio.

    Front pagers give issues greater legitimacy by simply covering an issue and create stronger group cohesion by also covering what multiple readers want to talk about. Likewise my reason for pushing the front pagers comes from my brief stint guesting for Atrios. I was very conscious of what emailers were forwarding to me and made an effort to balance what I wanted to cover with what multiple people were emailing me wanting covered. IMHO the relationship between blogger and reader, especially here at Kos, should be more symbiotic than adversarial.
    

    by Thumb on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:02:17 PM PDT

    •  You Mean To Tell Me...

      ...he wasn't outraged that Daily Kos wasn't giving sufficient space to stories based on the assumption that the election was stolen, and that Kerry really won?  I thought the problem was that just about everyone who's plugged in enough to know about Daily Kos, TPM and Eschaton knows that the election was stolen, but that the "leaders" of the "netroots" are really "the man" keepin' everyone down?

      And you think it should be more symbiotic and not adversarial?  So, tell me how this comment by you:

      Fucking congratulations, Armando (3.22 / 9)

      I think you've finally jumped the fucking shark.
      We're all so fucking glad to have you in the same fucking chair as fucking Billmon, fucking Meteorblades, fucking Steve Soto and fucking Steve Gillard.

      Way to fucking go. We're all so fucking proud to have you around to help keep us on the fucking straight and narrow.

      You're a fucking gem.

      ...is symbiotic and not adversarial?

      By the way, your next comment in that thread was, in light of this diary, revealing:

      ::sigh:: (2.00 / 6)

      I miss having the adults in charge

      Again, I'm having a hard time seeing that as "symbiotic than adversarial," but I'm also intrigued that you apparently feel a need to have authority figures in charge.  

      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:35:18 PM PDT

      •  I remember reading that post...

        ...and it was clear to me that he was parodying armando's posts in that thread, f-bombs and all.  It didn't seem adversarial to me in the context in which I first read it.  Taken out of that context, it makes the post look like a foul-mouthed, divisive rant.  That's my only comment on this, as I would be surprised if you didn't respond to this diary, since you have a starring role in it.  

        by tompaine2004 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:07:41 PM PDT

        •  I Thought So At First...

          ...but then I looked at more of the thread, and it was pretty heated, with lots of people taking shots at Armando, and Armando taking lots of his own shots.  (Start the subthread here and judge for yourself.)

          Anyway, Thumb's had at least two opportunities to clarify his intent.  First, he sent me an email asking why I gave him a 1, which I later changed to a 2.  Unlike what Thumb did here, I wouldn't post his email to me without permission (even though there wasn't much to it, unlike the email he posted in this diary), but here was my reply:

          Because I thought it was completely uncalled for.  In retrospect, I probably should have left the third one alone, but my reaction was to the progression--or rather, the regression--of comments from the jumping the shark comment to the wishing adults were in charge comment to the zzzzz's comment I eventually gave the 1.  I seemed gratuitous to me and unneccessarily escalated things.  

          Look, you had a legitimate point to raise in the jumping the shark comment, and I'm not going to get too high and mighty and imply that I'm like Gandhi, but you jumped in to criticize Armando right after somebody delivered a cheap shot, and he had an understandable reaction.  We don't get paid for running the site in Markos' absence.  Sure, we get an ego boost from being on the front page, but I never denied it nor would, I suspect, any of the current crop of guest bloggers.  But that doesn't mean that it's not a big deal to have people essentially say that you don't give a shit about democracy, or--as both me and DemFromCT have been of recently--that we're paid shills in the employ of the GOP.  (I'm not making that up, and it didn't just come from newbies; both Marisacat and Marie have made the accusations, repeatedly.)  So, I read that exchange in the context of many of the people claiming the election was stolen and that Kerry really won also calling the frontpagers "Vichy Democrats" and whores for the GOP and people who don't give a shit about our country.  

          In that context, the zzzzz comment, while in response to a pretty brusque comment by Armando, seemed unnecessarily spiteful.  In retorspect, I still think it was probably a 1, but I'm not as sure as I was when I rated it, so I went back and rated it "up" to a 2, because I still think it was at best marginal.  

          Anyway, tempers are short lately, especially for those of us being personally attacked, almost entirely by people who don't have the first clue of what there's talking about.  Hopefully the tempers will cool sometime soon.  In the meantime, that particular dust-up is in the past and not something I'll dwell on.

          Peace.

          Now, maybe I was wrong, but in the three days since I sent that email, I haven't gotten a reply of any sort saying "hey, you misread it, it was a joke" or something of the sort.  But even though he didn't reply to that, he could have cleared it up here, but instead, as he points out downthread, he's left for dinner and isn't around.  Apparently he only had time to take shots at the frontpagers, but not to participate in any dialogue.  

          by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:21:50 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            Unlike what Thumb did here, I wouldn't post his email to me without permission (even though there wasn't much to it, unlike the email he posted in this diary),

            My email to you consisted of a single line, "What's up with the troll rating?" With regard to the email I posted from another front pager, 1) they remain anonymous unless they want to be known and 2) it clearly illustrated in the first person what many of us are feeling is the attitude of the main pagers, elite bloggers and MSM toward the whole electoral issue: Go away.

            Now, maybe I was wrong, but in the three days since I sent that email, I haven't gotten a reply of any sort saying "hey, you misread it, it was a joke" or something of the sort.  But even though he didn't reply to that, he could have cleared it up here, but instead, as he points out downthread, he's left for dinner and isn't around.  Apparently he only had time to take shots at the frontpagers, but not to participate in any dialogue.  

            First, I didn't reply to your email because 1) I thought you did a fine job of explaining yourself, 2) I knew we were still in discussion in the thread that led to this diary and 3) the "three days since" involved an intense push at work to finish year end projects before having 30 people over for New Years Eve festivities and the subsequent sleeping off the effects of same. Dec 30th - Jan 1st isn't just some random "three days."  

            As to, "Apparently he only had time to take shots at the frontpagers, but not to participate in any dialogue" I really wish I could type with more than two fingers and didn't take my whole day writing my piece. Should I have instead waited to post the diary until I knew I had an additional hour or two to participate immediately?

            by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:07:02 AM PDT

            •  Since you mention front pagers

              and this of course is the problem with what you have done, I want to make clear that it is NOT an e-mail from me as I have never sent you an e-mail.

              Now of course, the possibilities narrow and eventually, the sender of the e-mail will be known.

              As it is, the other front pagers are "suspects."

              Bad form.  I'll know now not to send you a private communication - you won't respect it.

              by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:54:04 AM PDT

              •  Exactly

                How many frontpagers are there?  How much have we written, and on what subjects?

                People figured out Joe Kline wrote Primary Colors, and the universe of possible writers of that was immesurably bigger than either 5 (current) or 9 (current and most recent) frontpagers.  

                Bad form indeed.  

                And while I respect tompaine giving the benefit of the doubt, as I initially did, I can see from the comments here that I was correct in reading that earlier comment as an attack.  I stand by my conclusion.  

                by DHinMI on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:08:51 AM PDT

              •  And of course

                by your denial you narrow the field of who did make that statement.

                But you shouldn't worry about the front pagers being "suspects" seeing as the sentiment expressed appears to be shared by, at minimum, a large percentage of front pagers.

                by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

                •  Now You're Just Being a Jerk

                  Don't you get it, that you're breaking trust, and making personal attacks?  

                  Don't you realize you're being disrespectful to people who took time to give you a direct answer, and now you're using their direct answer to you to take shots at them?

                  by DHinMI on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:15:45 AM PDT

                  •  FWIW

                    I was extreemly conflicted about using that excerpt. After I recieved that in a reply to a complaint I was kept awake at night struggling with what to make of it.

                    It was not a "shot" at the person who sent that to me. I decided to use it, sans credit, to buffer against the inevitable claims that there is no "conspiracy" to keep Ohio off the front page or otherwise give any "official" support for the "Fraudniks." However, I can't say I would do the same thing in the same circumstances again. Probably better to keep it as a hole card if I needed the defense later.

                    by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:31:40 AM PDT

                •  I think we can safely say

                  that most front pagers, and I expressly including myself here, think you are a jerk.

                  Thumb I'm through with you - and I imagine you are happy about that.
                  

                  by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:32:28 AM PDT

                  •  Well,

                    Coming from a self described asshole™ I'd say we have more in common than our surface differences suggest.

                    You, more than most, should be able to appreciate that an inherent bluntness of opinion is both blessing and curse. Or, as my wife tells people, "Sure he can drive you crazy, but ho boy, when he's on your side there's no one better to have there."

                    As DHinMI might say, peace.

                    by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

            •  Question:

              Should I have instead waited to post the diary until I knew I had an additional hour or two to participate immediately?

              Answer: I'm suprised you'd feel the need to ask the question, because the answer is so obviously YES that I have a hard time taking you seriously.  
              

              by DHinMI on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:10:58 AM PDT

              •  Trick question

                Not only did I take time I didn't have to write this diary but I would never have an additional couple hours to stick around anyway.

                The irony in all this is that I didn't even think anyone would be around on a Sunday night for immediate comment and I fully expected to have to do all my response comments in the morning. My bad. Live and learn.

                by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:16:42 AM PDT

    •  I've never had that problem.

      Every time I load up kos on any comp, the diaries are completely visible to me. That may be a problem unique to the Macintosh, but I'm sure most Mac users can find their way here if they wanted to.

      But to inform people who only see the front pages, maybe kos could promote georgia10 or yourself to the main page to do regular features on the Ohio investigation.

      It seems to me like you're ready to strike off on your own and start your own blog. Many people here have their own blogs after being a regular on here for a while. You could stay here and post some and join 2-3 other communities as well to help drive traffic to your blog.

      You're comfortable about talking politics to other people; you could talk to your lawyer friend and anybody else you know is a Democrat and have them join your blog.

      I understand what the problem is with the diaries not being visible, but there's still a lot you can do to make yourself and your ideas more visible.

      by Eternal Hope on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:03:36 PM PDT

      •  it's not a Mac issue

        it's a monitor rsolution issue. My Mac at home and (ugh!) Windows 2000 PC at work are identical when it comes to the dKos home page.

        by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:17:02 AM PDT

        •  He did say

          it was an older computer. I don't know macs so I didn't recognize it as anything.

          by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:08:44 AM PDT

•  Its all about leadership

  to me.  If there was a leader in the pack who could understand the cold feeling of not knowing your vote counted and understood that even if that feeling was  PROVED WRONG it would be a relief.  But as it stands now, none of the dems want to prove it one way or another.  Silly gits.  What will it harm them if their constituency has some warm fuzzies about voting in general.  AND IF we, who would like to believe that there are more than 49% of us that have more than two brain cells to rub together, are PROVED RIGHT?  How would our Dem leadership be harmed?  

  by glitterscale on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:52:12 PM PDT

•  Careful with your generalizations

  On a tit for tat level concerning the growing adversarial stances between the front pagers and everyone else over election fraud (irregularities, whatever) related issues, and how the front pagers are or are not properly covering it. . . .

  Don't lump "everyone else" in with you against the front pagers. There's a very large group of us who are with the front pagers in wanting to see this issue covered responsibly (thank you, Georgia10!). Most of us avoid the Ohio diaries like the plague and don't get involved in the fights because we are sick to death of them. But don't take our lack of participation in the fights as evidence that we don't care about voter suppression and voting irregularities. We care about making sure that we're all working productively to correct those things that went wrong in 2004 by 2006.

  by mcjoan on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:01:00 PM PDT

  •  You are correct

    That was sloppy shorthand and should have been corrected in editing. I didn't mean to imply "everyone" in the context of what "everyone" means by definition.

    by Thumb on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:07:27 PM PDT

    •  I just wanna say that the 2 and the 3 you

      got for thsi are the funniest ratings I have EVER seen on dkos!

      LMAO

      Mambo

      by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:02:06 PM PDT

      •  well

        someone once troll rated me for calling Armando an asshole^TM (even though it's a self-label). That was pretty funny, too.

        by DemFromCT on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:05:44 PM PDT

        •  adsf

          That was pretty funny, too.

          I guess it would be if it weren't so sad.

          ;-)

          Mambo, FC

          by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:15:48 PM PDT

          •  ah...

            I suppose.

            by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:03:31 AM PDT

      •  The 3 was just a quick thanks

        Recognition that well, we recognized. Did it deserve a 4? I guess it could have. I'm starting a resurrect the 3 kick though, with the New Year. It's the most underappreciated of numbers.

        by mcjoan on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:16:43 PM PDT

        •  Hmmm.

          Happy New Year.

          by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:21:04 PM PDT

          •  The only appropriate response P-)

            by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:52:46 PM PDT

            •  since you have to put text in a subject line

              : )

              by mcjoan on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:11:13 PM PDT

•  seems to me that, despite talking about this

  once or twice a week in meta-diaries, the topic sems to come back again and again. Sometimes it's the same people discussing the same points, but often, in fact, it's 4 or 5 or 10 others who get a chance to air their frustrations, rant, discuss and resolve, then move on. I guess that's because no one can read every diary, and during the holidays some folks just aren't here to read them. So, it'll likely take multiple discussions to personally discuss it with everyone who still wants to talk about it.

  Yesterday's was here. Today's is by Thumb. Why respond? Is this current or past frontpagers included in the brushstrokes of mild accusation? Well, DHinMI is in the crosshairs, so i guess it's the old and new. And I'm thinking it's worth the discussion, even if it involves 1 or 5 or 10 folks at a time. Thumb, you make some assumptions which are not necessarily so.

  • One is that it's frontpagers vs everyone else. Far from it, as I do not believe you speak for everyone, or even more than a small portion of everyone anymore than I, speaking for myself, do. If 40 people write in and say you speak for them, there's 40,000 registered users who may still not agree.

  • Another is that to have doubts means the desire for examination is (somehow) denigrated. As Kagro X so succinctly stated in yesterday's diary:

  Our ability to hold fair, transparent, suppression-free, and auditable elections is of great concern, and not by any stretch well-enough guaranteed.

  But that says nothing conclusory about anyone's having actually corrupted anything.

  The threat of paperless voting is simple, easy to understand, and in theory, easy to correct. So much so, that people don't really need to have any proof of there actually being fraud to want to see it corrected.

  But other kinds of claims of fraud -- again, NOT suppression -- particularly those which require massive conspiracies, or even collections of large numbers of small conspiracies, are different in kind. Those are harder to guard against, and therefore require more invasive correctional procedures. Procedures for which our criminal justice system generally demands much in the way of proof.

  The only objections to paper trails are costs. That's easy to overcome rhetorically, and the fix (so far as we know) is a good bet to work correctly.

  Not so with the other allegations of fraud.

  I posted underneath and said that about sums up my position (and who cares about my position, anyway? well, I'm one of them front pagers Thumb talks about). And objections to the use of 'fraud' or using exit polls to 'prove' the election was stolen (two popular claims) does not mean that frontpagers disagree about the need for investigation, verification, paper trails or transparency. Claims to the contrary likely cannnot be substantiated with documentation.

  • Another is that somehow the topic is/was ignored. Not so. And as for ignoring the topic after that, note now that the subject is prominently featured once or twice each and every day in a recommended diary that lasts on the front page longer than usual main page stories. And as for ignoring those who want the topic on the front page, see comments by Coldblue Steele re how we used the diaries to vet while main page stories followed and ari about front paging in general (and there are other pertinent comments in that and many another diary).

  • Another is that frontpagers are "feeling the heat". Nope. I think not. But if you ask, you'll get a response, hopefully a reasoned and polite one. But that depends on how the question or concern is presented. Are front pagers frustrated? maybe; anyone answering the same question every day might be, but I think on the whole, we're (present and former) all willing to do so.

  • Another is that to disagree is to tell people to "shut up" in some sense. I do think people should abandon wing-nuts like Wayne Madsen and furthermore, those with your POV should take responsibility in reeling in the more far out and outrageous theories and claims so that it doesn't fall solely on front pagers to do so. Without that, this site and the serious posters are tarred. Because of that, front pagers do take the lead in doing just that. See above for why that does not mean that front pagers do not want investigations.

  Any other questions or concerns?

  by DemFromCT on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:09:23 PM PDT

  •  Very briefly

    because I'm already way late for dinner, but 1) I did not say ignore. I was much more nuanced if you read what I actually said. 2) I admitted that my use of the word "everyone" was careless and lessened the point I was making. 3) I never connected disagreement with "shut up." At least I didn't think I did, I'll reread my diary after dinner.

    by Thumb on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:27:47 PM PDT

    •  i was writing this as you posted the 'everyone'

      thingie with mcjoan. Sorry about that; had I seen it, i wouldn't have included it, and I withdraw that part of the comment.

      Enjoy dinner; enjoy georgia10's opus. When you have time, read yesterday's diary as well. Then come back and talk some more.

      by DemFromCT on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:36:14 PM PDT

  •  CT

    I don't have to tell you that I largely agree with what thumb has to say.  I think your comments in response are totally appropriate -- even where I disagree.  A point which I beleive is central to what Thumb is saying here (and if niot -- what I would say) is that your comments are much more appropriate here rather than in topical OH diaries.  Same goes for the bulk of comments by other "skeptics" (if you've all named yourselves, I'll be happy to use your label of choice . . . btw, I have adopted and happy refer to myself by the term a gilas girl coined: "fraud complainer" though I like FC for short) -- if process / burden of proof / journalistic standards / credibility comments had been confined to process diaries I think we would have avoided much of the acrimony here.

    FWIW

    Mambo, FC

    by Mambo on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:13:02 PM PDT

    •  likely so, Mambo

      if process / burden of proof / journalistic standards / credibility comments had been confined to process diaries I think we would have avoided much of the acrimony here.

      but that's easy to say in retrospect (comments made are comments responded to, wherever). Also, a handful of the 'process' diaries themselves (including theor titles) were inflammatory enough (on both sides) that a case for the opposite might well be made!

      Cheers.

      by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:09:37 AM PDT

•  There's Something Wrong...

  ...when people base an extensive diary on why myself and a handful of others think what we think and don't share other people's exact beliefs.

  First of all, I'm no longer a "frontpager," nor have I been for over a month.  Furthermore, I find your terminology of "classes" ridiculous, because by your definition, for a long time I was a member of a two-person class (me and Meteor Blades), and never a member of a class with more than five people out of the tens of thousands at Daily Kos.  

  Secondly, you seem to have glossed over the specific reason I thought it was unacceptable that you ignored my post regarding Soros et all buying the voting machine companies, and you here misrepresent it.  The post was a quick piece suggesting that Soros et al buy the companies and then place them in a public trust, which achieves exactly what you claim to want.  Furthermore, the idea came from one of your comments on an earlier thread, and you pointed out that you wrote the comment that inspired the post in the thread beneath the Soros piece.  Now you've made things even worse, buy cherry-picking to an absurd degree to put words in my mouth that are demonstrably false.  

  Now, on to specific points:

  It's as if DhinMI, and by extension the rest of the front pagers, are trying to sound like the NYTs. It looks to me as if the front page is doing with the issue what the "liberal" media does to us all the time -- cover a story once or twice, inside page, and make certain to place the contrarian argument prominently. This is why Front Pagers are feeling the heat and frustrations they're feeling, when the issue is covered it comes with enough disclaimers, counter arguments and proper "frames" to make a SCLM journalist proud.

  No, the problem isn't that we're trying to be the NYT, it's that you want Daily Kos to be your NYT but with you exercising full editorial control of the content.  The issue of why people on the frontpage have and have not devoted the level of attention you wish dedicated to the mechanics of the last election has been addressed ad nauseum, and I do not feel compelled, two months into this ongoing "why won't you write what we want you to write" drama to rehash what's already been said.  And maybe the reason people feel frustrated is that your "class" doesn't care what's been said.  I've decided that with very few exceptions, none of you will ever be satisfied unless Daily Kos is "all fraud, all the time."  

  We're supposed to be the activists here. We're supposed to be the ones saying, no, make that SHOUTING that partisan control over our vote tabulations is wholly unacceptable. Period. These partisans and those in their employ (ES&S, Sequoia, Triad and Diebold) should not get the benefit of the doubt and we shouldn't have to wait for a smoking gun before we take action toward transparent elections. The burden of proof to prove either the exit polls wrong or the "conspiracy" national in scale shouldn't be on our shoulders, the burden of proof falls on the partisan activists that have purchased, and are paid millions of dollars for, their oligopoly over our vote tabulations.

  Nobody's stopping you, you've been told over and over and over and over and fucking over and over again that we all favor transparent elections, and painting those who don't share your unshakable belief that nothing should be written about except exactly what you believe is the worst way to convince people you should be taken seriously.  And your idea of where the burden of proof lies is pretty laughable.  You think the burden of proof lies on the accused, or the accuser?  The person making the argument, or the person who doesn't find it persuasive?  

  As for the email, it wasn't mine, but if it was, I'd be pissed that you exploited the fact that one of the "frontpagers" took the time to send you a personal email, and then you put it out for everyone to see.  

  And to think I started coming here because I was sick of the MSM's aversion to covering GOP malfeasance because of the fear of looking "far-left wacko."

  Then start your own blog.  Seriously.  If the people have the power, why do you need this totally arbitrary handful of people picked by Markos to be your leaders.  Why do you so crave their acceptance and validation?  

  You want leaders?  Then get off the fucking blogs.  Nobody elected us, and nobody asked us to be your leaders, and with the possible exception of Markos, none of us have any interest in being your leaders.  We write, and we write about politics.  But I never sought responsibility and authority to lead you or anyone else.  You want a leader, lead yourself, or join an organization...do something other than bitch that a few of us at Daily Kos don't see things exactly the way you do.  Quit acting like those people back in the sixties looking to Bob Dylan to answer all life's questions and to be their leader.  

  We want front pagers to use their valuable real estate to put the right-wing on the defensive over voting integrity, not the "far-left wacko" that talks about fraud and irregularities and whether or not an intertwined network of Republican activists running state elections and vote tabulators constitutes an actual conspiracy or merely a potential conspiracy, or whether Bush actually stole the election or simply could have stolen the election. We want to be updated on the Conyers hearings and Arnebeck's filings.

  <channeling KagroX>How much more valuable is the "real estate" on the right of the screen than that on the left, especially since things usually stay far longer on the right side of the screen.  Anybody who wants to see it can see it on the right hand side, written by people more passionately engaged in rooting through the stories and thus written more passionately than if by somebody who doesn't share your exact beliefs.  It's all there, you just want the "cachet" you think comes from being in the center vs being on the right.</channeling KagroX>

  We want fresh meat we can go to our conservative co-worker or family member with and say, "Can you believe this . . ." and make them feel out-of-the-loop.

  What's stopping you from doing that right now?  Do you think we get paid to be your Google service, and only on subjects you want to read more of, regardless of whether frontpagers want to write about something else?  You complain that people are being shouted down, but yet you are attempting the same, essentially saying that frontpagers shouldn't write about any other subject as long as your desire to see what's happening is satiated.  (And it's only satiated by reading it in the center column, and not on the top right corner.)

  Instead of leading a feeding frenzy encompassing the whole issue of elections in our democracy and putting the Republicans on the [deserved] defensive over their monopoly over vote tabulation we're instead being led by self-admitted skeptics doing our opponent's work of pointing out and alienating our fringe fighters while refocusing the issue on the minutiae of our arguments to the exclusion of the greater issue of single-party control over our elections.

  So, you think that if this issue had been given more space on Daily Kos, the Republicans would have been put on the defensive?  Well, you're never going to be satisfied.  Again, I never asked to lead anyone--and aren't you concerned that your vote on that issue was never counted?--so there's a real impasse.  And apparently you think skepticism is a pejorative, but I think it's the foundation of our intellectual inheritance from the Enlightenment, it's the foundation of science and scholarship, and it's one of the key things that separate us from the faith-based Bushies.

  And that's what it comes down to; you're operating on faith, and you're pissed that we don't share your articles of faith.  To which I again say, why don't you start your own blog?

  And quit placing so much faith in people to save you.  

  Now, back to finishing the follow-up to the my diary about Ohio from the 27th, which at this point probably won't be posted until tomorrow evening.  

  by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:23:09 PM PDT

  •  Okay, now I'm really REALLY late for dinner

    but I have to comment on this:

    Secondly, you seem to have glossed over the specific reason I thought it was unacceptable that you ignored my post regarding Soros et all buying the voting machine companies, and you here misrepresent it.  The post was a quick piece suggesting that Soros et al buy the companies and then place them in a public trust, which achieves exactly what you claim to want.  Furthermore, the idea came from one of your comments on an earlier thread, and you pointed out that you wrote the comment that inspired the post in the thread beneath the Soros piece.  Now you've made things even worse, buy cherry-picking to an absurd degree to put words in my mouth that are demonstrably false.

    My original post regarding Soros buying Diebold WAS NOT about Soros buying Diebold, it was about the fact that the Right-wing would be going apoplectic and cable would be running the story 24/7 until something was done about a partisan activist owning the company that counts our votes. I was not advocating Soros buy Diebold, i was pointing out the differences in approach between the left and the right concerning partisan ownership of computer voting!

    I didn't read any further because in five minutes I'll be wearing my dinner instead of eating it.  

    by Thumb on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:34:54 PM PDT

    •  *Sigh*

      Are you reading anything I'm writing?  Nowhere did I say that you said that Soros should buy the companies, I said, in the piece, in the comments attached to the piece, and again in this thread, that your comment was the INSPIRATION for my piece.  

      I didn't read any further because in five minutes I'll be wearing my dinner instead of eating it.

      Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was OK to malign people and then scoot off for other things and not stick around to defend the accusations you make about others.  

      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:40:10 PM PDT

      •  Pot.

        "Now, back to finishing the follow-up to the my diary about Ohio from the 27th, which at this point probably won't be posted until tomorrow evening."

        Kettle.

        "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was OK to malign people and then scoot off for other things and not stick around to defend the accusations you make about others."

        
        

        by rincewind on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:42:42 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, Whatever

          I'm actually taking time to more carefully document how that "analysis" was a fucking joke, even though I did, as you were correct in figuring out, misread the columns on that one website.

          But the analysis is still a joke, and if I hadn't felt compelled to respond to a post directed quite personally at me, it would have been tonight.  But don't worry, it will be posted.

          And if you can't see that there's a difference between the two cases, oh well, maybe I gave you too much credit, especially since the comment you made on my diary was posted over twelve hours after I put the diary up.  

          by DHinMI on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:47:36 PM PDT

      •  double *sigh*

        I'm reading what you're writing. You wrote:

        The post was a quick piece suggesting that Soros et al buy the companies and then place them in a public trust, which achieves exactly what you claim to want.  Furthermore, the idea came from one of your comments on an earlier thread,

        That does not achieve exactly what I claim to want. What I claim to want, and could not be more unambiguous about, is a level of attention and focus on the people behind our voting tabulation similar to that which we would see if the partisan rolls were reversed. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why is this causing so much animosity and defensiveness?  

        And most importantly, why aren't we treating Ahmanson and O'Dell to even a fraction of the attention that Soros would receive should he own ES&S, Sequoia or Diebold?
        

        by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Strength....sapping....Must....concentrate.....

    If you all keep channeling me, I'm not going to have the energy to conduct my medical practice in georgia10's thread.

    by Kagro X on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:29:05 PM PDT

  •  zxcv

    No, the problem isn't that we're trying to be the NYT, it's that you want Daily Kos to be your NYT but with you exercising full editorial control of the content.  The issue of why people on the frontpage have and have not devoted the level of attention you wish dedicated to the mechanics of the last election has been addressed ad nauseum, and I do not feel compelled, two months into this ongoing "why won't you write what we want you to write" drama to rehash what's already been said.  And maybe the reason people feel frustrated is that your "class" doesn't care what's been said.  I've decided that with very few exceptions, none of you will ever be satisfied unless Daily Kos is "all fraud, all the time."

    I've seen scarecrows stuffed with less straw.

    Nobody's stopping you, you've been told over and over and over and over and fucking over and over again that we all favor transparent elections, and painting those who don't share your unshakable belief that nothing should be written about except exactly what you believe is the worst way to convince people you should be taken seriously.

    Again, more straw. And even though I've been told "over and over and over and over and fucking over and over again" about how you all favor transparent elections what I see is skepticism about the need ("Bush won anyway" "It won't change anything" "You're hurting the cause") and derision heaped on those that cry foul "over and over and over and over and fucking over and over again." And what's your latest piece going to be on? Is it another effort by you to tear down yet another story about what may or may not have happened in the last election? That should no doubt be helpful.

    Then start your own blog.  Seriously.  If the people have the power, why do you need this totally arbitrary handful of people picked by Markos to be your leaders.  Why do you so crave their acceptance and validation?

    Take it or leave it? How DLC of you. And I don't crave acceptance or validation or I wouldn't be putting myself on the firing line over this.

    Nobody elected us, and nobody asked us to be your leaders, and with the possible exception of Markos, none of us have any interest in being your leaders.

    Uh, whatever you say Mr. Barkley.

    And apparently you think skepticism is a pejorative, but I think it's the foundation of our intellectual inheritance from the Enlightenment, it's the foundation of science and scholarship, and it's one of the key things that separate us from the faith-based Bushies.

    Well, that and an ability to win elections separate us from the faith-based Bushies.

    Now, back to finishing the follow-up to the my diary about Ohio from the 27th, which at this point probably won't be posted until tomorrow evening.

    Yes, I eagerly await your piece to see how you approach the goal we all share of transparent elections. You know, the goal that's been repeatedly told over and over and over and over and fucking over and over again.  

    by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:00:50 AM PDT

    •  Four Word Summary of Your Position

      Critical thinking is mean.

      by DHinMI on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:19:01 AM PDT

      •  Nine word summary of my position

        Call them a pig-fucker and make them deny it.

        by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:47:51 PM PDT

•  I think Thumb is right in part

  And I said so in my diary discussing the subject.  My views have not changed.

  As for my being an asshole and dropping f bombs when I am accused of being a GOP operative - well I'm still an asshole and I will still drop an f bomb on people who accuse me of being a GOP operative.

  And a troll rating for such a comment is not out of line.  I don't think, in the circumstances, it is, but that's my opinion, and reasonable minds can disagree.  

  by Armando on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:02:40 PM PDT

  •  ah

    that infamous thread. I was missing something in all of this. Precisely why I tread lightly into this territory.

    by mcjoan on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:17:32 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    well I'm still an asshole and I will still drop an f bomb on people who accuse me of being a GOP operative.

    I never accused you of being a GOP operative, I [indirectly] accused you of coming across as less than an adult (not that I would ever . . .).

    Maybe that was worse?
    

    by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:16:29 AM PDT

    •  And I didn't drop F Bombs on you

      supersimian did and received f bombs from me as a result.

      by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

      •  Don't you remember?

        Your response to me, since deleted, was a headline only "Fuck You!"

        I assumed you only posted it because your zero rating dissapeared the thread and then you deleted the Fuck You when the thread became uprated (and thus reappeared) and you didn't want such a crass vulgarity to my "I miss when the adults . . ." post to hang out for all to see.

        by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

        •  That's not my recollection

          But if I deleted it, I think that would indicate my belief that it was wrong.

          I've said fuck you on occasion and they remain undeleted - in particular, the most recent to super simian.

          by Armando on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:48:20 AM PDT

          •  It stood out to me

            because I was so startled by it.

            But at any rate emotions are getting the better of many of us, and one of my reasons for personally taking a break from Kos for a few months. I'm picking fights with people I should be searching for common ground with and my own anger is getting in the way of creating more cogent, useful posts.

            Coming across as a jerk I can live with. Coming across as a fool on the other hand . . .
            

            by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:10:57 AM PDT

•  Thumb

  Interact with those who care about what you care about. Don't argue with those who don't. They won't change, nor will the editorial position of dailykos or the fact they missed the big story change. So be it. Enjoy those who work with you to advance the story. Meanwhile we have georgia10's incredible "The Armando Challenge or The Informed Citizen's Guide to the 2004 Election" so nothing stays the same after all.

  by moon in the house of moe on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:26:40 PM PDT

  •  seen that comment before

    While (believe me) I don't expect credit or want it for georgia10's work, there's this. To some (and not necessarily yourself), it's never enough, but still, I couldn't disagree more with any comment suggesting self-segregation. Some build community and coalitions, some build walls and silos. Your choice.

    by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:32:43 AM PDT

    •  I'm all for community

      but the argument with the same group on both sides over the election issue and dailykos is dysfuntional, futile and non-resolvable through discussion. It should be dropped amigo. Waste of time. Meanwhile armando/georgia10 is positive and useful.

      by moon in the house of moe on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:34:09 AM PDT

      •  response to queries is always relevent

        even if another topic is preferred. ;-)

        by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:10:21 AM PDT

        •  Just depends on

          how many times you want to answer the same question, stake out the same position. If it's the same exchange for the thousandth time, perhaps it's just time to let go.

          by moon in the house of moe on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 09:42:09 AM PDT

          •  Isn't insanity

            defined by doing the same thing repetedly and expecting a different outcome eventually?

            by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:23:50 AM PDT

            •  I was going to say that

              but thought the repeating argument of the dysfunctional family was a closer metaphor and it didn't call anyone insane, just stuck which is more like it.

              by moon in the house of moe on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:29:45 AM PDT

              •  I used insane

                because the whole issue makes me feel insane. We'd be dysfunctional if we were unable to overcome our differences in approach and work together on what we can agree on.

                At least I hope we can once everyone who needs to purge themselves [looks in mirror] has finished venting.

                by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:49:17 PM PDT

    •  I agree, but

      aren't communities within communities creating walls and silos by definition? Isn't much of the conflict over this issue (all issues where we conflict, really) caused when we try to bring ourselves together under a single banner?

      Large groups beget factions within. Some factions spin off and some stay and try to effect change from within by building coalitions. It's all very fluid.
      

      by Thumb on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:22:27 AM PDT

      •  sure is...

        that's why I refuse the advice 'stick with your own..' since that changes all the time.

        by DemFromCT on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:58:45 PM PDT