Skip to main content

Sorry, but this is an example where I'm going to piss off some people, but it's a time to name names:

jg
tunesmith
Charles K
Mogolori
raatz
cotterperson
misterajc
celdd
kant
km4
TracieLynn
Dazy
FtheNaysayers
sharman
HippyWitch
PsiFighter37
kalman
Bionic
sgilman
David Boyle
dmmteacher
hoolia
Kidspeak
DeanFan84
socal
cacophonix
Tod
rockdart
DissidentGirl
annefrank
Caleb G
Circle
BlueInARedState

What's wrong with you guys?  Huh?  Why did you recommend this diary, claiming that some staffer in Ken Salazar's office just told some schmoe on the phone that he sold his vote to James Dobson?  

There are a few people on that list I know and respect, and I'll assume they just weren't thinking.  We all do it sometimes.  Buy why are so many people recommended that diary, on the flimsiest of evidence, to make the most extraordinary of claims?  Exercise some sceptism, please!

The majority of comments on that thread are rightfully sceptical of the diarists' unsupported claims.  It also seems quite dubious that this diarist has only written two diaries, and they're both about James Dobson.  What are the chances that someone who wrote about James Dobson would be the only person to report that Ken Salazar's staff is telling unidentified callers that he's sold out to James Dobson, with whom he's had a very public and heated dispute?  

Geeze, people, let's not be gullible!

UPDATE

The list above will change, because surely some people on that list will unrecommend (while others will, unfortunately, add their names to the list). Because someone's name is listed above does not mean they stuck by their initial decision to recommend.

Originally posted to Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:07 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  RECOMMENDED! (4.00)
    (You think I'm kidding...)

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:07:02 PM PST

    •  a drive-by 4 (none)
      just because yours was the first post to recommend.

      -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

      by subtropolis on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:36:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't kidding (4.00)
        A day or two ago I went off, mildly, as is my wont, on a diary that made it to the top of the list with nothing but conjecture. I won't link, just to protect thenames of the guilty.

        You didn't do it.

        by Earl on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:33:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  tricked again (3.25)
      The diary DH is talking about is a drive-by.  The job for trolls THIS evening is to distract attention away from Kerry's filibuster.  They are scared of this.

      They suceeded (the trolls, that is).

      And, I guess that someone is going to tell me "Look at his comment history, he even has a 4X9 comment", gullible, gullible kossacks.

      Let's do the math.  >75K users.  How many trolls? 1%? .5%?

      1% troll is >750 trolls!
      .5% troll is still >375 trolls!

      Did someone ever walk up to you on the street and ask you if you want to buy a stereo?

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:58:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm not trying to harp on anybody that was (4.00)
        named.  And I'm not calling anybody specifically named by DH 'gullible'.  I'm speaking generally and my motive is to increase awareness of trolls and the crap they pull.  And I don't think it was the best idea for DH to name names.  That's not a good habit for us.

        In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

        by yet another liberal on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:12:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree (4.00)
          This is not a good habit.  The first time I saw it happen I was pretty pissed.
          IMHO it should only be used in extreme situations.

          Someone give me a good sig line!

          by OregonCoast on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:21:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's why I asked that my name be added (4.00)
          I asked (see comment way down below) that DH add my name to the list. Maybe it was a bad diary, but I did recommend it, in perfectly good faith, and I see no reason why that should be treated as a crime.

          I make plenty of mistakes and, should that diary be proved to have been false or deceptive, I will add another verified mistake to my long list.

          •  because (none)
            Having a smear diary on the Recommend list is contrary to our cause.  It should be resisted.  Nothing you did is being treated as a crime.  I only disagree with DH in that he named names.

            In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

            by yet another liberal on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:36:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a good point (4.00)
              I understand your point, yet another liberal, and it's a good one. But I didn't think it was a smear diary. I may have been mistaken, and I may have employed insufficient skepticism, but I did not act in bad faith.
              •  Diaries and Comments can be rated. (4.00)
                or recommended. That is our current method.

                How or why someone recommends something is their own fuckin' business.  Period. What's fuckin' next? Why do you like the color Green?

                This Diary is upsetting. I'm going to recommend, then un-recommend it now.

        •  "Naming names" (none)
          I am struck by how many posters object to DH listing the pseudonyms of posters whom he charges with a minor lapse in judgment.

          Compared to the relatively few posters who object to circulating a very dubious anonymous charge that Sen. Salazar (real name) conspired with a right-wing activist and sold out his principles.

          •  Well, I went back and unrecommended it (4.00)
            I returned to the diary and noted that several posters were advising people not to recommend, or to unrecommend. Their opinions seemed plausible and independent, so I did unrecommend. If the diary proves to be false or misleading, I will be angry with its author, but I still don't think people who erroneously recommend a diary (such as myself) should be pilloried (as I was not, but only by chance).

            Instead, I think we need a mechanism here for alerting people to suspected deception or excessive rumor-mongering. Then recommenders can re-evaluate and perhaps un-recommend.

            This mechanism could be something like a "Notices" area near the top of the main page. Perhaps only front-pagers, etc., could post such notices? I don't know.

            But no concept of shame should be attached to what is simply a (possible) mistake. That is needlessly divisive.

            •  That's one model (none)
              It would eventually work. The original story would circulate for a while, and be given more prominence by the Notice questioning it. Then it would be partially debunked -- not proven, not proven false.

              The other model is: bring critical eyes in the first place. Demand strong evidence before you help circulate extraordinary accusations. If people do that, the original story doesn't become prominent in the first place.

              •  Bring critical eyes, but mistakes still happen (none)
                In an open forum such as Daily Kos, you cannot possibly expect that the huge number of people browsing the site will be able to avoid any number of errors. To use the present case as an example, I run my own weblog (http://newsfare.com), and I'm very current with a lot of what is going on, but as it happens, I was not familiar with Senator Salazar's record or positions. I was not sufficiently careful, and I screwed up. Surely it is unrealistic to imagine that others will not do the same on some topic or other with which they are not intimately familiar.

                Our Constitution takes exactly this tack about human failings: it plans for them, rather than trying to exhort them out of existence.

                I think my idea of posting front-page notices would be helpful. Also, in a case like this one, I think it should be possible for moderators to post a prominent notice near the top of the diary itself, noting that informed people have concerns about the material, concerns which are being investigated further. In serious cases they could even close the diary temporarily while further checking was being done. Then if the diary winds up being permanently pulled, an explanation should be posted instead.

                Almost any solution, I think, would be better than publicly insulting people for their honest mistakes. That needlessly divides our critically important community.

                •  The firestorm (none)
                  certainly supports your view. I personally did not find the diary "insulting" -- DHinMI specifically talked about lapses in judgment, and his personal respect for several names he recognized. But certainly plenty of people felt insulted, and that got in the way of the discussion.

                  It's also true that a Recommendation is an essentially selfless act. Sometimes it even pushes the Recommender's own diary down.

                  Nonetheless: I would ask all of us to notice diaries that contain attacks on the character of a public figure and make poorly supported accusations against him / her.

                  •  EGGGGSactly (none)
                    I personally did not find the diary "insulting" -- DHinMI specifically talked about lapses in judgment, and his personal respect for several names he recognized. But certainly plenty of people felt insulted, and that got in the way of the discussion.

                    1. Most of the people expressing outrage on this thread, claiming I told them what they can and can't recommend, yada yada yada, weren't even on that list.  Some just wanted to be contrarian, and continue the long-standing reaction that "nobody's gonna tell me what to do!"  In fact, one of the most faux-outraged people on this thread made a point downthread to say he was going over to that other diary to recommend it just because of this diary.  What fucking judgement, that they'll go over and promote what I think was deliberate slander against a public official just to spite me.  Sheesh.

                    2. You're correct, I made a point to say I like and respect some of the people on that list.  Note--not you, because you probably caught it, but if anyone else strolls by here--note that I didn't call the people who recommended it stupid, I said they were being mindless.  Implied is that they have the capacity to make better judgments, but they're not exercising that capacity.  I think a lot of insecurities fly out whenever anyone challenges someone, that they can't admit "oops, yeah, I kinda screwed up there."  They just go on the counterattack.

                    3. Frankly, most of the people on that list?  I don't know who the hell they are.  I think there are lots of people who just recommend any damn outrageous diary they see, being it on the WTC conpsiracy theories, the flimsiest accusations that Bush stole the 2004 election, that a Democrat is evil, whatever.  Because most respectable diaries that make the reco list, I'll recognize half or more of the names on the list.  But the shitty diaries, the ones like I just described, and the ones like the one that prompted my reaction last night?  I don't know most of those people, and few of them are regular participants on diaries or front page posts.  They're simply recommenders, and some of them do a piss-poor job of it.

                    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                    by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:04:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Thirty-eight so far (none)
      Man!  I salute everyone who recommended this for their sense of irony!

      Remember when we were against torture, before we were for it?

      by pshaw on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:18:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  mindlessly recommending (none)
    Because I'm secretly DHinMI's bot

    Just look at any of our exchanges and it is obvious

    ;p

    I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man - find out who said it!

    by TheGryphon on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:09:39 PM PST

  •  Maybe the claim is true. (3.50)
         And shouldn't you be calling your Senator to ask for a filibuster of Alito?
  •  Man you done dissed Boyle (4.00)
    That ain't up. You apologize. He was prbably just sleepy or something. (Yeah, I know you already did and you said it jsut for him probably, but i just wanted to say...)

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:10:43 PM PST

  •  Right after I mindlessly recommend..... (4.00)
    ...I'll check out your list.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore.."--Prine

    by Cathy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:13:38 PM PST

  •  aoeu (none)
    what'd you say?
  •  Wow, there's half a dozen people or.... (4.00)
    more that I respect on that list.

    Hi, David Doyle!

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore.."--Prine

    by Cathy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:15:27 PM PST

  •  David, David (4.00)
    tsk, tsk.

    It's ok. I still love ya.

    ;)

    tracking the domestic spying scandal here.

    by Georgia Logothetis on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:16:52 PM PST

  •  DH (4.00)
    DH, I love you baby but calm down just a little bit, please.  

    Isn't it possible that maybe one or more of the people you listed might have recommended the story just so more people might read it and debunk it? I really doubt they had only malice in their hearts aimed at upsetting you.

    {{{HUGS}}}

    •  No Malice Implied (none)
      But no forethought exhibited.

      Recommending something that's possibly slanderous toward a Democrat just so it can be debunked?  MAYBE someone was that misguided, but I suspect it was more likely a lack of discernment or a willingness to believe the worst without pondering whether it was even remotely plausible.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:19:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Toward a Democrat?" (none)
        If a similar story were aimed at a Republican, I hope we would be just as clear that more substantiation is needed.
        •  It Was a Deliberate Word Choice (4.00)
          You're right, just as much discernment should be exercised either way, Repub or Dem.  But if something outrageous is said about a Republican, the general response around here--often with good reason, I'll add--is "ho hum."  But say something outrageous about a Democrat, and it gets lots of people all atwitter, and they put their recommend button on pulsate.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:33:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's pretty hot... (none)
            it gets lots of people all atwitter, and they put their recommend button on pulsate.  

            You could probably make money selling a pulsating recommend button for gettin atwitter.

            Ahem...

            I'd just like to add that this is a more serious problem when it's someone like Salazar who's had a mixed history of sticking by his party.  That's why it's PARTICULARLY important that we don't recommend shit unless we have a link or substantiation.

            Oh well a young man ain't got nothin' in the world these days-- Mose Allison

            by ChicagoDem on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:35:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The Other Issue is... (4.00)
          ...collateral damage.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:35:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (4.00)
      I was one of the people who recommended that diary and that's exactly the reason - so other people might be able to debunk it, not to slander someone.  I guess I'll have to watch what I recommend from now on so I won't be labeled "misguided".  
  •  Oh for heaven sakes (4.00)
    Everyone makes a mistake once and a while.  I for one recommended the Salazar diary, read some comments, thought the better of it and unrecommended it.  I made a mistake and corrected it.  Should have thought a little more in the first place.  I for one will bet DHinMI 10 bucks (and I do mean this in the most friendly and gentlemanly way possible) that the Salazar diary will be off the reco list by 10:15 PM EST.

    For the record, thank God I unrecommended in time, I wouldn't want to be blacklisted as an idiot.  Whew.

    You all have to admit, if all the crazies were not around life would have less purpose

    by genethefiend on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:17:55 PM PST

  •  Oh come on DH! (4.00)
    Be like the NSA!
    To Really piss 'em off, you name them, and then proceed to describe every bit of personal info that you can find about them down their last DNA test!
    If you're going to go after someone, do it with style! :P

    It's now the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"... Which means what? They know of all the terrorists in our country and only LISTEN?

    by RElland on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:19:31 PM PST

  •  delete this diary (4.00)
    it would be better placed as a comment on the diary in question, rather than wasting diary space with what would be rather thin without the padding of the recommenders' list.

    not that i disagree that the salazar/dobson hearsay diary shouldn't have been recommended, but, well, i didn't recommend it, and i figure that's enough. it isn't my place to tell people what they can and cannot elevate to the top of the list, even if they're gullible.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:19:35 PM PST

    •  Who Says It's Not Your Place? (4.00)
      If it's not your place, and it's not mine, than whose is it?  And if nobody calls out this shoddy judgement, then shit like the diary in question will regularly be recommended.

      There are standards for diaries.  Diaries that are clearly against those standards shouldn't be recommended.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:27:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  an entirely new branch of the diary police (4.00)
        this is new, is it not?

        i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

        by rasbobbo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:40:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hear you. (4.00)
        I feel pulled in two directions on this.  On one side the site needs to be able to filter out the distracting noise that only pulls away from our credibility.  On the other hand, calling people out can discourage discourse.  

        There need to be forces that discourage people from spreading baseless conspiracy theories, I agree.  Calling people out, however, seems a little over the line, especially when all of the top rated comments on the diary already question its validity.  

        "Calling out" other site users by name in diary titles is prohibited. Diaries which "call out" another by name tend to needlessly inflame. If you feel compelled to address another user's comments or diaries in a diary of your own, please do so cautiously. Avoid ad hominems and stick with substantive, constructive criticism only.
         

        That's from the standards page you link to.

        I think the diary comments (and especially AAB), were doing a great job of voicing criticism.  I assume you have really thick skin (you must, or you'd probably never sleep).  I feel the need to tell you that when I saw this diary, I said "ooh damn."

      •  standards (none)
        4. Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.

        and that's not even getting into duplicate diaries where the same topic spawns a million slight variations. call people out in the diary in question, if you feel you must. rules is rules, after all.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:58:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the community's place (4.00)
        then shit like the diary in question will regularly be recommended.

        OMFG people will discuss stuff you're not interested in discussing.
        .
        If you or anyone has a problem with a particular diary, you have the option of posting that within the diary. You can debunk the theories or challenge the opinions expressed in the diary. You can persuade others, by posting within that diary, on why it shouldn't be recommend. You can ignore the diary and read one that interests you more.
        .
        Until Kos gives you a baddass Hall Monitor crest -- a big orange delete button on crossed tonfa sticks -- and nuking powers to scrub whatever offends you, those are your basic options.
        .
        You can always post on your own site with your own rules and manage your throng of fascinated followers from there.
        .

        If scAlito is mainstream, why lie about his record? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:05:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  read it again (4.00)
        it is not my place to tell others what they can or cannot do with their reccommends. that is not the same thing as refuting a bullshit diary in the comments, which i would have done had a whole host of folks not already beaten me to it. refutation is always preferable to censorship, as those who would arrogate the authority to censor are not always correct in the judgement. one of the reasons why i prefer scoop to a moderated site, actually.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:05:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well shit (4.00)
        DHinMI? - if there are already standards for Diaries, and if Diaries and Diarists have been banned in the past (tinfoil)
        then why not enforce the existing standards?
        Wouldn't it be best to warn the Diarist? Even warn him/her in public? Then to pick on people's personal decisions to recommend or unrecommend a Diary?

        You want to moderate. There is a set of standards. YOU neglet to apply those standards to a Diary you strongly object to, and then proceed to attack the members that merely recommended a Diary. Why they recommended the Diary or not to, shouldn't YOURS or anyone else's business.

        This Diary is an attack on people's personal preference.

        A recommend is a marker for others to see this is something they should check out, for good or bad.

        Daily Kos should feel free to recommend what they will. This is a bad, bad, bad move, and terrible moderation.

         

    •  No, this diary is necessary (none)
      I've seen DH in the past try to be patient with the patently stupid diaries and I've even made the mistake of recommending one of them in the past - then proceeding to spend the next hour getting the diarist to FIX just about all of the diary (hoo-boy!).

      This happens so much as to necessitate this diary and comments fall by the wayside too quickly. It's a good reminder that part of the responsibility in a democracy is a little self-policing and common sense.

      Thanks, DH, and I'll try to be more careful myself!

      Peace y'all.

      •  Naming Names Sucks. (4.00)
        DH should have complained vehemently in a comment to the diary.
        Is DH a mindreader and allknowing as to  why people recommended original diary?
        This tactic reminds me of something Dick Cheney would do.
    •  dunno what changes kos is considering (4.00)
      for the reco list, but I'd love to see some means for voting against as well as voting for something's being on the list.  

      If you're right that I shouldn't be able to tell other people how they should vote, I'd like some means to cast my own vote or rating to the contrary.  Currently, the only way to do that is to run around recommending a bunch of other diaries, in the hope that they'll replace the offender on the rec list.

      •  i'd like that too (none)
        i guess we'll have to wait to see what kos pulls out of his bag of tricks. there is a big difference between reacting to idiocy by adding one's own voice on the one hand, and calling for the silencing of idiocy on the other, IMO.

        crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

        by wu ming on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:50:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I like the 'Cream of the Crop' approach too (4.00)
        There's a simple organic solution to that.

        If a well-researched diary, or thoughtful, well-written opinion -- even one that's not in line with my own views -- seems getting lost in a stream of Explosive Diaryha, I've linked to it in my Kos sig. Makes it easy to jump to.

        I can't understand what fussing over other people's tastes / inclinations accomplishes.
        .

        If scAlito is mainstream, why lie about his record? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:27:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dos Mojos. (none)
        I also think having two types of Mojo would help along with the ability to rate a diary down without first recommending it.

        Something like this.

        Diary Mojo: You get this mojo for comments rated in diaries. You can get diary TU status, lose it, regain it, etc but it only applies to diaries.

        FP Mojo: You get this for comments made on FP stories and/or diaries that get FP'd. E.g. any Diary Mojo would become FP mojo if that diary gets FP'd.

        The reason I think this is important is because I have noticed lots people just hand out 4's to each other in the diaries for stupid one line comments that have no substantive content, whereas ratings are doled out in a much more reasonable manner on FP stories.

        I also think a meta-moderation scheme ala slashdot would be beneficial too.

        Behind the dark veil of patriotism a nation mourns itself.

        by Espumoso on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:14:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sweet! (4.00)
    I made the honor roll...

    Thank you, thank you..
  •  I've no opinion (4.00)
    about the diary in question. But I do hope that this "naming names" does not become a trend. :-/
    •  it's not like the list is secret (none)
      and I'm sure DHinMI will delete the diary once enough people have unrecommended the other one and it is off the recommended list.  
      •  What if (4.00)
        the named people don't want to obey and unrecommend? Then we'll end up with diary number 1 AND diary number 2 (talking about diary number 1) on the recommended list. I don't think there's any point in that.

        The points made in this diary could just as well have been made as comments in the original one.

        •  There is a point (none)
          It provides a counterpoint to the original diary. Many people don't read the comments.  They just read the diary itself.
          In any case, I don't think all the people who recommended are so stubborn that they would refuse to unrecommend.  In fact, the diary has started to fall already and will hopefully be gone soon.
          •  I dunno (4.00)
            I also just don't like the feel of this. Naming names. What's next; a diary naming the stupidest commenters of the day?
            •  well, we kinda have that already (none)
              Just check out the hidden comments. :-)
              In any case, I think this was a case of "extraordinary circumstances" given that the original diary contained a completely unsubstantiated and almost certainly false rumor about one of our Senators.
              I think it would have been better had DHinMI just asked the recommenders to unrecommend rather than calling them out and calling them names, but I don't see anything wrong with listing the names or writing a diary pointing out that a recommended diary is complete BS.
        •  Technically, (4.00)
          I believe this is outside MetaJesus's doamin, but it's in the neighborhood.  If diary #2 discusses diary #1, even only to comment on the recommendation of diary #1, then I believe that is a metajesus foul, and he will cry.

          -9.25, -7.54

          Who's a guy got to deny having sex with to get impeached around here?

          by Marc in KS on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:57:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Zombie lies eat my brain (none)
    I think some people's thought process basically goes like "wow, if true, this would be HUGE."  Which is why, you know, certain diaries make the list.
  •  The real suckers- (4.00)
    recommended THIS moronic diary:
    Leslie in CA
    LarryInNYC
    lightiris
    TealVeal
    MattBellamy
    bawbie
    drosophilo melanogaster III
    TheGryphon
    zic
    bhlogger
    kolly
    Caldonia
    kfred
    Elwood Dowd
    Terps Fan
    pattyp
    AnnArborBlue
    SheriffBart
    RElland
    Jay Elias
    Yellow Canary
    Arjunas Bow

    Way to waste your diary for the day.

    •  I want this up there on that list (4.00)
      until that other diary falls off. Then I'll unrecommend this one too.

      But I'm uncomfortable with that diary not having a response on the list, even if it comes in a somewhat aggressive form.

      Republicans aren't evil. They're just wrong.

      by AnnArborBlue on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:27:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's Update Your List (none)
      You're now calling these people suckers:

      Leslie in CA
      LarryInNYC
      lightiris
      TealVeal
      JustWinBaby
      Andy
      MattBellamy
      FaithAndReason
      Winger
      bawbie
      drosophilo melanogaster III
      TheGryphon
      zic
      foonk
      scionkirk
      bhlogger
      dqueue
      kolly
      by foot
      Caldonia
      Elwood Dowd
      Terps Fan
      vcmvo2
      pattyp
      Mad Mom
      AnnArborBlue
      SheriffBart
      RElland
      Jay Elias
      robo848
      LaX WI
      Yellow Canary
      buhdydharma
      Arjunas Bow
      bunk

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:41:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is getting childish (4.00)
        don't you think??

        And I DO mean on both sides...

        We should ALL be busy calling and emailing to push for a filibuster...instead here we are (or most of you are) bickering over this crap.

        I agree that shitty diaries are getting recommended...but isn't the shitty diary itself the place to discuss that?

        This is taking up space on the recommended list itself...and I don't think that's funny or good either...

        •  yes its childish and also 'uncivil' (4.00)
          i am a firm believer that you should talk to people on the Internet the way you would talk to them in person...

          i highly doubt these 'gentlemen' would be saying 'go fuck yourself' so easily if they were in a bar or a public park...

          and if they would, then i think we should schedule fist fights for the Yearly Kos convention and stream them live on this site...i want to see some men take their words seriously...

          preferably shirtless and lathered in mineral oil...

          I met Ray McGovern. He's an American hero.

          by missreporter on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:39:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I troll rated DHinMi (none)
        I can't think of anything more unproductive then trying to whittle down a "list" of productive members.

        Go fuck yourself DH - whoever you think you are.

        Take your fuckin' "list" and shove it.

        There. Done.

        •  Fuck Yourself. Hard. (1.00)
          Defend slander.  Fine.  

          Shows you have zero regard for truth, consequences, and personal and collective responsibility.

          Really, go fuck yourself if you think it's worse to call people out for mindlessly propogating slander.  

          I suppose if someone propogates slander against you by your real name, I'll just step aside, because, ewwww, it would be, like, ohmigod, soooooooooooooooo mean and stuff to defend someone's honor and demand substantiation for outrageous charges.

          If you really think this diary was all that bad, you have the moral compass of a reptile, and the mind to match.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:07:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess (4.00)
            If you really think this diary was all that bad, you have the moral compass of a reptile, and the mind to match.
            There are many of us stupid amoral reptiles here then. Perhaps there should be, I dunno, a purge. Or whatever you do with the people who don't think "right"
            •  Bullet in the Head (none)
              I mean, that's pretty much the same as challenging people to exercise sceptism, judgement and responsibility.  Jeeze, it's such an awful challenge, isn't it?

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 07:44:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not (4.00)
                talking about "challenging". I'm talking about telling people that if they think your naming names game sucks, they're amoral stupid reptiles.
                •  Great! Ignore Context! (none)
                  Please, give me a break.  He didn't just say it "sucked," and to claim that's all he said is dumb or dishonest.  

                  And the "naming names" verbiage is frivolous.  There was nothing McCarthyite about posting a list to which everyone had access.  And you were the one who talked about purges.

                  In fact, you're engaging in a whole pattern of misrepresntation, and hyperbolic McCarthyite analogies.  Give me a fucking break, and take your idiotic persecution claims to someone dumb enough to find them valid.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:20:23 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sheesh (4.00)
                    Now I am a stupid, amoral, idiotic, McCarthyite reptile. This is getting better all the time! :-D
                    •  Well, I Guess You ARE Stupid... (none)
                      ...if you think I ever suggested you are a McCarthyite.  

                      Either that, or I was giving you credit for honesty that's not justified.

                      Since nowhere did I call you or any of my antagonists McCarthyites, and since I was assailing them for hiding behind accusations that it was me who was acting in a McCarthyite manner, and since any competent reading of the comments would demonstrate that interpretation, I guess I'll exempt you from my criticism of people who were recommending diaries mindlessly.  Based on your demonstrated inability to see my clearly presented argument, you apparently lack the ability to exercise competent judgement that I attributed to the average Daily Kos participant.

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:42:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Poor baby. (none)
            What a child. Didn't your mommy ever tell you "no"?

            "Blessing are not just for the ones who kneel" Bono

            by kd texan on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:26:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks (none)
            for demonstrating the schoolyard bully you are.

            I feel sorry that you're such a nasty person.  

            •  Amazing How Much You Think... (none)
              ...you know about someone based upon some blips on a screen, huh?

              I don't need your pity.  Save it for yourself.

              Well, on second thought, maybe you don't need any more self-pity...

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:30:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Blah .. (none)
                "you know about someone based upon some blips on a screen, huh?."

                You made those initial judgements, and started the name calling, and started the personal attacks and have presented yourself as a nasty person here.

                You're right, all I know about you, are the nasty blips you present.

                Others here, seem to agree.

    •  I agree (none)
      Fuckin' hypocritical.
  •  That's the trouble.. (4.00)
    ...with a democratic recommend list.  You're stuck with what people actually want.  
  •  Mr. DH, sir, would you please review (4.00)
    my recomending habits and let me know how I'm doing?

    "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

    by buhdydharma on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:28:06 PM PST

    •  I can tell you that (none)
      You have a habit of assuming the role of class clown; you might have a future as a stand-up comic, but only if you can get the complexity of your skin-deep recommending under control.

      Given the number of times I've recommended your frivilous (and fun) diaries, this is a common problem on DKos. But the distinction rests in the fun.

  •  Do any of the'Kos 33' (4.00)
    have any last requests?
    It's the guillotine at dawn!!

    Common sense isn't that common - Voltaire

    by obgynlover on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:29:16 PM PST

  •  I actually broke the rules.... (none)
    I read the title, recommended...read a few paragraphs...and then unrecommended...so I'm not on the above list because I realized my mistake pretty quickly.

    But I agree that was a bad diary...

  •  More diaries about blogging? Wheee! (4.00)
    There are people who recommended THOUANDS of diaries last year. I doubt they were all credible.

    This is why the "unrecommend" button was added.

    Let's advise and move on to politics.

    Who would have tought that watching "The Land Before Time (IX)- Journey to Big Water" would become a subversive act?

    by mungley on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:32:05 PM PST

  •  It did get your attention, (none)
    now didn't it?

    Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

    by Skid on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:36:24 PM PST

  •  Needed to be said (none)
    Thank God I'm not on that list!

    Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought- John F. Kennedy

    by vcmvo2 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:39:24 PM PST

  •  maybe Jotter can do (4.00)
    "Dumbest daily recs"

    "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

    by Miss Devore on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:40:17 PM PST

  •  I hope (4.00)
    this doesn't start a battle between the two diaries.  Actually, that might be interesting to see.  For instance, do you put a concurring comment in this diary or critical comment in the other and vice versa?  Guess it's a choice of attitude.  Or do you do both?
  •  Damn fucking straight (4.00)
    I'd probably write a GBCDKos diary if I thought anyone would give a shit, but I'm seriously getting sick of all the bullshit diaries that seem to be pouring out all of a sudden.

    Bush Quote:

    "I like to eat spicy food.  But I know spicy food is bad for babies."

    10 minutes later a diary appears on this site:

    "BREAKING!!! GEORGE BUSH EATS BABIES!!!"

    Actually quote from George Bush - "I like to eat...babies". How could anyone of voted for this monster?

    which gets 100 Comments on the lines of:

    I knew it!  What a monster, how could he actually eat babies!!!

    or

    I bet you John Kerry wouldn't be eating any babies!

    and it recommends to the top of the list.

    I for one am getting sick of it.  It lowers the quality of the entire site.

  •  I see a (none)
    pattern developing here.
    BTW where did Bozo go anyway?

    Someone give me a good sig line!

    by OregonCoast on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:43:34 PM PST

  •  Idiotic (4.00)
    The fact that we're even having this conversation is idiotic, imho. Maybe we should be working the phones, our families, friends, casual acquaintances instead of freaking out over this diary or the other one, they both blow! The policing on this one seems a little over the top and somewhat Rethuglican for my tastes. Too much time at the monitor people, too much time (heh, I'm constantly at mine too, although I did call my Senators today, freeped polls, sent some emails, got a new job, etc.).
  •  Wasn't The Title Of This Diary... (4.00)
    ...stolen from The Colbert Report?

    Until liberals actually have power in this country, shut your whining conservative trap.

    by Hose B on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:45:24 PM PST

  •  Hiya (4.00)
    Hiya DH, I recommended 'cause I wanted it to get enough visibility for someone to post counter-evidence if it existed.  Trusting the community.  For the record.

    It's a good question and I'm glad you asked.

    Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

    by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:47:15 PM PST

    •  by the way (4.00)
      I had every intention of - if I remembered to - checking back on the diary for more well-thought-out objections and then unrecommending if it looked like a done deal.

      But now I think I'll leave my name up there because I'm perverse that way.

      Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

      by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:54:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and finally... (4.00)
        now that I'm reading the various high-minded opinions about people being misguided to recommend for the reasons I did, I'm left grumpy.  There are obviously different reasons for making recommendation choices and there's room for all of them.  Expending that much energy to call people out person by person is misguided because the whole point is the collective community decision anyway.  This is kind of like the whole argument about whether it's okay to "strategically" rate comments (like by giving them a 4 even if you think it's a 2 just because someone else gave it a 0).  The answer is, who cares?  The community is what it is.  You're not going to change the community by attempting to shame twenty or thirty individual members.  Sheesh.

        Anyway, I recommended the diary, and I'd do it again, dadgum it!  :-)

        Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

        by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:00:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, I think you're missing the point. (none)
          Maybe this diary is too confrontational, and that's the cause.

          But this is really a very simple and important point: Don't promote vicious rumors on the theory that they will live or die based on other people's comments.

          That is the rule here, and (IMHO) it should be the rule in everyday life.

          •  nope (none)

            The reason I disagree is this:

            It's a frigging diary.

            I mean, really.  Weigh the cost against Salazar's reputation, to the benefit of a community member smacking it down if it's clearly ridiculous.  In this particular case, it was no contest.  

            I figured if it were true (which was doubtful), then obviously it should be made public.  But if it were false, it were ridiculous enough - a friggin' diary on daily kos? - that it seriously wasn't going to do any real damage, AND, given the quality of our community, it would be smacked down in short order.  No contest.

            I don't follow that rule in every case, of course.  A perfect example: the vote fraud diaries.  That's a different matter though, because the comparison falls apart in far too many ways to list here.  But I could tell that the allegations against Salazar were sensational enough (to the diarist: well done!) that they'd get visibility anyway.  So, better to have the rebuttals on the record, rather than have the dim memory of doubts nagging at the backs of peoples brains.

            Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

            by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:30:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Strongly Disagree (none)
              Somehow I missed your comments before.

              I assume you know that you were one of the people I referred to as people I like and respect who were on the list.  And you, more than anyone, perplexed me, becuase I consider you fairly deliberate.  But I strongly, strongly disagree with your theory of recommending a diary as a means of debunking it.  Your suggestion that it would leave a nagging question is someone's mind is valid only in so far as the comments are concerned.  But the comments in that diary were mostly strong challenges to the truthfullness of the diary.  Whether it was recommend or not was inconsequential to the reaction one would have if one read the comments.  

              But for those who don't read the comments--and that's a  majority of the people who read the frontpage posts,  and is surely at least a decent sized minority of the people who read diaries--they're not going to see the debunking either way, so for any of this class of readers who are not personally sceptical, it just means more will see what was almost certainly a lie.  And if you don't think those lies stick in people's brains, you're not thinking about all the lies of the Bush administration regarding Iraq, especially all the annoucements about having found evidence of WMD after the war, all later debunked and mostly retracted, that nonetheless led many people to continue believing that we had found WMD.  

              It's much harder to dig out a lie that's burrowed into someone's brain, and all that diary was doing was helping burrow a lie into people's braind.

              If it was presented as a hypothesis, or an "I don't know if this is real, but I'll put it out there for people's reaction" kind of peice, maybe I could accept the "promote for community discussion" theory.  But not something like that diary.  No way.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:18:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  re (none)
                AS I MENTIONED ON YOUR DIARY, I UNRECOMMENDED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED YOUR DAIRY(YOUR COPY AND PASTE WAS LATE) AND I POSTED A QUESTIONING COMMENT ON THE SALAZAR POST THEREAFTER

                REMOVE MY NAME YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD

                ... now watch this drive.

                by jg on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:44:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  huh (none)
                I think the thing that bugs me most about your point of view is your implication that anyone who saw the allegation as potentially truthful was a raving idiot.  Thanks a whole hell of a lot.  I think you were way out of bounds on this one.  I initially posted under the assumption that the reasonable replies of people like me would cause you to backpedal, but you're just digging in.

                That was a high-quality lie in the other diary, and I initially believed it, partly because of my lack of knowledge of Salazar's willingness to stand up to Dobson over the radio.

                This was also very much the kind of diary - unlike the vote fraud diary - where it was obvious that the community was more than capable of pulling the diary back into perspective.  Simply put, I'm comfortable with trusting the community in ways that you aren't.  Your way isn't by definition the "right way", and I resent your methods.

                Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

                by tunesmith on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:08:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Vote Fraud Diaries Aren't Slander (none)
                  And they're not going to end up on Drudge.

                  Stuff like that diary was, and could have.  Other diaries have gotten into the spin cycle, and that one was primed for it.

                  Maybe I assume the average DKos participant is more sophisticated than they really are.  That diary stank of a lie to me, but maybe I'm just holding people to too high a standard.  I never said the people recommending that diary were stupid (or a "raving idiot"), I accused them of being thougtless; in other words, I implied they possessed the capacity to see that it was a lie, but that they weren't exercising that capacity they way I assume they typically would.  But maybe I'm holding people to too high a standard.  Maybe what was patently false to me really did look plausible to people, regardless of what they knew about Salazar, because they didn't think it would be odd that a deal like that would end up being announced by an anoymous staffer to an anonymous blog commenter, and not via some other method.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:43:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  whatever (none)
                    that basically describes me although I'd put it in more flattering terms.  but it's not the issue to me.  post a diary about that if you want, whatever.  people like me are comfortable defending themselves.

                    it's the list-making that is the issue here.  obviously there is no expectation of privacy when someone recommends a diary.  people can privately choose to click on it and see what's what.  but the choice to copy, paste, and then publicize in an effort to apply public negative pressure to individuals is really fucking creepy.  I am very surprised at you.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first because I figured you lost your temper.  But other people have made this point, and last I checked the list is still up there.  You're defending this practice, and I find it disgusting.

                    Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

                    by tunesmith on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:06:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nothing Private About It (none)
                      It's a public list available to any registered user (at least, and maybe even those not logged it).  There was nothing private about it.  Nothing.  In fact, if there wasn't a demand to see who's recommended a diary, I don't think there would be a button that says "Who's Recommended This Diary?"  And if you can cite a single instance of anyone thinking that feature should be removed, or saying that they don't recommend diaries because they don't want to sacrifice their privacy, I'd be stunned.  

                      And I did lose my temper, because people were mindlessly propogating a slander.  You still haven't taken any responsibilty for being suckered, or at least said a mea culpa for that, you're just pissed with me for posting information that was available for all to see.  

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:32:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  whoa (none)
                        there's the illustration right there.  you think I need to post a mea culpa.  that's just loopy.  a mea culpa to who?  you?  

                        I don't feel embarrassed or ashamed at all for recommending the diary.  I think that just doesn't compute for you.

                        You must think I'm pissed at you because you... what?  Caught me?  Wow.

                        Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

                        by tunesmith on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:48:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Nope (none)
                          I think you screwed up by promoting a slanderous diary, but really, you and everyone else on that list were secondary to my point, which Kimberly explained better than I have.

                          And no, it doesn't compute that someone thinks they did nothing erroneous in promoting slander.  I guess we've come to an impass.  I think it's wrong and harmful to promote slander.  Apparently you think it's not.

                          And I think you're mostly pissed at me because your name was on the list, and it was the second name on the list.  Really.  I doubt if it was another diary and your name wasn't on the list, you probably wouldn't be all that worked up about it.

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:12:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  wow (none)
                            You really have to take a better look at yourself.  Right now you're reduced to telling me that my feelings are different than I've actually communicated them to you.  That's incredibly arrogant.  When have I ever lied to you, DH?

                            Go review my timestamps.  If I had been angry about it as you theorize, I would have reacted differently from the outset.

                            Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

                            by tunesmith on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:22:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Yep (none)
    The same people that recommended that diary are probably the same ones calling out the media for fact errors. I think everyone needs to think about their own actions before criticizing others'.

    "He's not a leader, he's a Texas Leaguer" - Eddie Vedder

    by griswald11 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:48:23 PM PST

  •  There's no evidence (4.00)
    to support the contention that all the people who recommended the diary also support it's contention that Salazar sold his vote.

    Another possibility for recommending it is to keep it visible long enough to get someone else interested in confirming or debunking the contention.

    That's a conclusion based on a faulty premise that if you recommend reading the diary you also agree with it's contents.

    The falacy there is illustrated by a personal example of mine - I read Chairman Mao's Little Red book in my younger days and recommended that others read it. I most certainly didn't agree with most of what was in it but I thought it was important to read.

    The reasons for recommending The Little Red Book and the subject diary are different but I contend that some people could have a debatable reason for recommending the diary.

    This could get us into a whole other area of debate - what's the function of dKos ourside of Markos' written reasons but we can save that for a diary by one of the biggies around who would attact enough attention to generate a lot of well-thought out comments.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:48:42 PM PST

    •  There is a BIG difference ... (none)
      ...between recommending controversial political literature and recommending an anonymous piece of what may well be slander.
    •  Strawman (none)
      I never claimed to know why people recommended that diary, and I wouldn't assert that they were or were not doing it for agreement.  But it's an awful diary, probably a complete fabrication meant to screw with DKos, and lots of people recommended it.  It don't know what they were thinking.  I suspect most of them weren't thinking much about it at all, which is my point.  Before accepting or even dignifying outrageous claims like those contained in that diary, I'd like people to think about it, and question whether it makes any sense.  I don't think it does, and most of the commentators in that diary seem to be of the same opinion.  If it's a diary that doesn't make sense and is borderline slanderous, there's no good reason it should be recommended.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:00:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A strawman with bones, I say. (4.00)
        Of course I know you didn't claim to know rec'd the diary. I made an inference based on a supposition that if you thought under some circumstances it was okay to recommend a diary that you didn't agree with you would've said that.

        I agree that I made a leap but my point doesn't limit itself to the subject of your diary while you focussed exclusively on one diary.

        On this particular diary I happen to agree with you but my problem is that I have an inate resistance to considering myself or you as an arbiter of what's a valid diary. This was a bad diary but the next one might not be and might be one by a person with the noblest of intentions.

        I would've jumped right in with you had you presented your diary as a sort of tutorial on logic and critical thinking instead of an attack on those who may or may not have had a debatable reason for recommending a diary.

        It's like the difference between telling a runner to run faster and telling him how to run faster.

        The inability to make a critical analysis of writing is not limited to the right even if it tends to swarm there.

        Since you have the pulpit I'd like to see a diary that would help people make better decisions rather than destructive attacks with no more than where's-your-evidence questions as ammo.

        -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:13:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Are you fucking kidding me? (4.00)
    DH, I respect you a lot for being one of the more reasonable voices of reasons in this part.

    That being said, way to be a PROFESSIONAL ASSHOLE in calling people out. That is completely uncalled for. I recommended it because I generally take people at their word here - I don't think someone would pull this out of their ass. I unrecommended because it's not a good practice to recommend diaries without factual backup, but come on! So I'm a little naive, and you get on your fucking white horse and basically shit all over the reputations of certain people here? Ridiculous.

    How about you apologize, DH, for your bullshit. Seriously. I'm sure most people I've interacted with here would say I'm a reasonable person who hasn't engaged in any flaming or trolling behavior. You stepped out of bounds, and I'm pissed...as I'm sure the other folks you named are as well.

  •  how productive can it be (4.00)
    to call out individuals?

    no one deserves to be kos-swiftboated.

    "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

    by Miss Devore on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:56:01 PM PST

    •  about as productive as (none)
      someone who posted e-mail headers the other day.

      Of course, I think the person who did that should be permanently banned for doing so, for whatever reason.

      There is simply defense for ever doing that.

      Ever.

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:14:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Recomending this diary (none)
    even though I essentially disagree with the sentiments. It's a discussion worth having. I posted my reasons for disagreeing obtusely upthread.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:56:19 PM PST

  •  I'm not sure what to think. (4.00)
    I generally don't like anyone who goes around whining all the time about how stupid other people are.  Even when that is done with the intent of pointing out mistakes that would "damage the credibility of the site" or somesuch, it is very off-putting.  

    On the other hand, I would rather make sure of the rumor that Salazar made a deal with Dobson.  But I think a comment on the diary in question would have been the appropriate place to express that.  And, in my opinion, listing the recommended list was completely unnecessary and distracted from the real issue.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:56:31 PM PST

    •  It might be (none)
      overkill to list the names but there were many comments in the diary calling it most likely bunk yet it continued to climb the list.

      "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

      by Mike S on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:25:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of times people (none)
        recommend a diary they think might be off base just to make sure it gets discussed.  Recommending a diary is not necessarily an endorsement of what the diarist said.  I concede that writing a separate diary could be constructive if ones comments would be buried at the end of a long list of other comments so that people likely wouldn't read it.

        There is a broad issue that people often recommend diaries without reading them thoroughly.  I agree with DH 150% about that problem.  And I think a diary addressing that broad issue would be appropriate, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the first diary on that topic.  I seem to recall other diaries now and then about that.  At this point, it would probably take a post by Markos himself to make the point.

        The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

        by mikepridmore on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:51:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  guess i am mindless too (4.00)
    ... but I thought the sell out possible.  Trust has been eroded to the point almost no one is trustworthy.  
    •  response (4.00)
      the best response to that diary that I read (haven't checked recently) was the one talking about how salazar routinely makes fun of dobson on the radio and how his approval ratings go up each time he does it.  That was the one that made the allegations seem so much more ridiculous.

      I think the diary was better with that comment than without it, so I'm glad the diary was visible enough to elicit that response.

      In a sense, I think this criticism of the people that recommended the diary (me included) is akin to the washington post shutting down their blog comments.

      live by the community.  it'll educate itself, especially if you participate in it.  but you can't force it.

      unlearn, DH, unlearn!!

      Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

      by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:03:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the idea (none)
      If the truth is always up for debate, and no source can be trusted, you never need to be right.  

      You just need the stronger will.

      An unfortunately, that's where we're all headed.

      (Cross-posted in my pants)

      by Calishfornia on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:38:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was gonna reccomend this diary... (4.00)
    just because it was DHinMI...lol

    But...then I remembered the nuns whacking us on our palms, in front of the whole class, and I said to myself..."Self...That sucked".

    So.....When I owned my own business, and someone needed a little "correction", it was always done in private.  

    And yes I understand, that's a lotta email addresses to look up, and the whole tribe wouldn't be clued in to the "faux pas", but embarrasing people in front of others, is just not something worthy of a leader.

       -that's another little tip from your uncle meagert

    if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there...

    by meagert on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:02:08 PM PST

  •  recommended, no wait. (4.00)
    Let the record show that I just recommended this (DH's) diary, and then immediately unrecommended it.  :-)

    Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

    by tunesmith on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:06:21 PM PST

  •  DH (4.00)
    have been noticing a kind of crabbiness about you since change of FP guard.

    Are you vying to replace "The Bad Armando?"

    "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

    by Miss Devore on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:11:00 PM PST

  •  mom says: (4.00)
    slowly, move away from the screen...now, go outside and look at the stars and consider the universe.  breathe in and breathe out.
    there now.
  •  I recommended that diary so add me to list (4.00)
    I did recommend that diary just a few minutes ago because I thought it was fascinating and sounded plausible, after Susie Madrak ran it on her weblog.

    Where is there a rule or even a publicly posted recommendation which states that the above reasons (my reasons) are insufficient ones for recommending a diary? I don't see why you are acting as if YOUR criteria for recommending a diary are:

    1. Obvious to others
    2. Universal

    I am an intelligent, thoughtful person, as is Susan Madrak. She mentioned in her post that the information was unconfirmed, and by now she may have expanded on that, or retracted, etc. I have not checked back, yet.

    But I see no excuse for treating recommenders as miscreants. None whatsoever. I think it is an error for you to do so.

    •  But but .. don't you feel better (none)
      knowing that someone else is better than you and can make the decision for you?

      Come, don't you feel a certain relief that you no longer have to think for yourself?

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 05:16:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  dratman speaks for me on this one (4.00)

    John Murtha speaks for me

    by cotterperson on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:26:25 PM PST

    •  Thank you, cotterperson (4.00)
      It may turn out to be a bad diary, but that does not make me a bad person... does it? I mean, I guess I could have made a mistake... right? I've made mistakes before. There's an old saying, "Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken."

      Actually I make several mistakes on an average day. That comes with being over 50, but also with being human, I think.

      And I still don't know for sure whether the infamous diary in question was actually false or deceptive. Was it? I'm going to check back and read some more of the comments there.

      Meanwhile, please don't shoot me.

  •  all I want to know (4.00)
    is who died and made DHinMI the diary police??

    "I ain't no physicist, but I knows what matters"-Popeye

    by keefer55 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:38:31 PM PST

  •  Armando Mutation Sighted (none)
    Wow DHinMI... nice attitude.
  •  Damn you DHinMI (4.00)
    You just blew it for me.

    I was ready to write a diary about how I talked to John Kerry's office and his staffer told me that aliens had threatened to destroy the world if he didn't filibuster.

    Now I will never have a recommended diary.

    Geez, thanks for ruining my plan to take over the world.

    The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

    by NYC Sophia on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:49:13 PM PST

  •  RE (3.66)
    FUCK YOU AND REMOVE MY NAME.  I UNRECOMMENDED OVER TWO HOURS AGO THE SALAZAR DIARY.  

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:52:35 PM PST

  •  RE (3.40)
    From the Salazar/Dobson Diary:

    I think it means somethign that the diarist has not commented in the thread.

    This is high velocity material and set up quite well, but something is off on this story and diary.

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:07:11 PM PDT
    [ Reply to This ]

    Remove my name, you dick!

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:55:48 PM PST

  •  I'm somewhat new to this community but.... (4.00)
    ...I have to ask you if you've gotten picked on and beaten up alot in life?

    We're you the kid that always felt like that you should've been popular because you KNEW what was cool and others didn't?

    In all seriousness do we really need a lecture on what we should and shouldn't reccommending by someone who dedicated an entire diary to the sexism that is the word "balls"???

    I've never contracted an STD but I have to believe that being tortured by just the glimpse of the subject line of your latest "From Atop My Pedestal...." diaries has to be pretty close to what it must feel like to have one.

    What's next, the "Why can't people use the right conjugation!" diary?

     

  •  What shit... (4.00)
    So, some people recommended a pointless diary which apparently is not even on the recommended list, so now we have to read this shit about it?  DHinMI, I'm sorry, but you have delusions of grandeur.  This pointless diary is surely just as stupid as the one you were castigating people for recommending.  

    People do need to stop mindlessly recommending diaries, including tripe like this one.  

    In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

    by Asak on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:05:22 PM PST

  •  I think Dudesattva (4.00)
    needs to visit us with his wizdom.....

    "You'd like that shit...it's all political and morose."

    by Miss Devore on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:13:04 PM PST

  •  Whew, (4.00)
    glad I'm not on that list. Matter of fact I feel a deep paranoia taking hold down deep. I may never recommend again.

    "If you're going through hell, keep going". -Winston Churchill

    by One bite at a time on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:33:14 PM PST

  •  FYI DHinMI (4.00)
    The diary was on the rec list when I read it before I proceeded to make
    my million little pieces of bandwidth mistake of {gasp!} recommending
    BEFORE I read the diary.  But having my name in a diary is a First.

    Bush is NOT America!

    by annefrank on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:36:16 PM PST

  •  In support of kidspeak (none)
    I think he/she might be under the age of 18.

    I don't know.

    MATTHEWS says Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" (Hardball, 10/24/05)

    by Krush on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:27:25 PM PST

  •  I just recommended it (4.00)
    Fuck, I wish I had another username so I could recommend it twice. Because I think its bullshit singling people out, many of who are on our side, for ridicule. If you say you respect some of these people why the fuck did you post their names? Just so you could make them look foolish? Burn 'em at the stake!
  •  If Dems dont Fillibuster, I'm commiting suicide (4.00)
    Here's a Diary DH was unconcerned with, if one is acting as a "guardian" of this site, they should do their job.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I say we look through and pull all the crappy Diaries front pagers have recommended.

    It's a personal decision how and why someone recommends a Diary.

    Power corrupts. DH?

  •  Recommend - Unrecommend - Recommend (none)
    These Kosians have recommended a Diary that singles out members that merely recommended a Diary. I will update as nessesary.

    www.dailykos.com :

    he Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

        Leslie in CA
        No One No Where
        Ed in Montana
        Ptolemy
        LarryInNYC
        lightiris
        TealVeal
        teacherken
        teenagedallasdeaniac
        areucrazy
        JustWinBaby
        Andy
        Raybin
        Earl from Ohio
        FaithAndReason
        machopicasso
        Winger
        baracon
        bawbie
        TheGryphon
        ilona
        zic
        foonk
        mldostert
        indybend
        scionkirk
        Ti Jean
        bhlogger
        ksh01
        dqueue
        wilco920
        kolly
        by foot
        missliberties
        darylt
        brainwave
        Caldonia
        Kidspeak
        Reality based mom
        ChiGirl88
        Elwood Dowd
        CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream
        Terps Fan
        Marc in KS
        vcmvo2
        pattyp
        who threw da cat
        HellofaSandwich
        Nuclear Tea Party
        Mad Mom
        reahti
        RElland
        calebfaux
        Jay Elias
        JPete
        robo848
        LaX WI
        Yellow Canary
        buhdydharma
        dougymi
        Arjunas Bow
        bunk

  •  Hey DH.... (4.00)
    Maybe it is now time to delete this diary, which - while making your point - portrays you as kind of an asshole.

    I agree with the sentiment that some questionable diaries get recc'd and the discussion is definately worth having. But, the way you went about it is completely unproductive. A real discussion won't be had when started on such a negative and nasty note. "Mindless" is unnecessarily rough.

    Today was a tough day to follow dKos, with Byrd selling out an important cause for another run that will end with him being 94 years old. So, people made mistakes. There were dozens of comments in that diary screaming for people to unreccomend - and many did.

    Since the diary - upon review - was trollish and in violation of the recently stated diary rules, any of those with front page status could have deleted it - on the basis of it being slanderous alone. This would have caused an uproar for certain, but it would not have lead to the public humuliation that comes from your diary.

    dKos has seen a reccent influx of new trolls - one look at the hidden comments illustrates this point - who seem to have a good idea of how to game the system at work here. As members of this community, we need to be far more alert to this trend, especially with the mid-terms approaching.

    At this point, the last thing we need is another goddamned pie war - this time started by a troll...

    Poems and stories from the mind of Darrell Gahm...the American nightmare

    by the white trash poet on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:00:58 PM PST

  •  RE (4.00)
    DHinMI, you are still being a fucking prick I see.  keep it up, looks good on you.

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:16:11 PM PST

  •  Well, hell (4.00)
    I missed that one, somehow.  Maybe if I run over there right now I can still make it in time to hit the button.  I'll do anything to make it on a list!

    Oh, wow.  Now I there is someone making a list of people hitting the button on this diary, too!  Oh, good -- I can be on BOTH lists!

    This is gonna look great on my resumé..... thanks!!

    80W-71S
    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

    by Eddie Haskell on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:23:38 AM PST

  •  Re (none)
    Get the fuck up and repair your diary, you sillly mindlesss fucknit

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:13:26 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site