UPDATED Are Some Outsiders playing with US Democrats?

There have been so many Hit and Run mean-spirited hateful diaries here on dkos of late. I believe many are coming from some anarchist/socialists people who have become very disillusioned with Democrats and of course the Republicans.

I believe I have found one source. If anyone is intersted in reading the full article, one will see that the Daily Kos blog is mentioned in it.

Why I’m supporting John Edwards - an appeal to the Left
by Alan Thomas

At both the last US Presidential election, I took a stance that is not popular on the UK left - one of support for a critical Democratic vote. For those of you who are unaware of my political heritage and who may be surprised that such an apparently uncontroversial stance would excite any kind of debate at all on the liberal-left, allow me to explain. The political background from which I come is one of the left in union and wider labour movement politics, where Trotskyist groups, all of which have a visceral loathing for the Democrats, have loomed large. Indeed, they were only ever really willing to call for a vote for the Labour Party in the UK based on a combination of recruitment raiding, and Byzantine theorising that attached an almost religious significance to the never-exercised trade union link with Labour.

I  advocated a vote for the Democrats in 2004, not because I held any great (or indeed any) faith in John Kerry’s ability to make or stick to a principled statement, but because I believed that in the midst of the Iraq war and in an atmosphere of whipped-up racial hatred towards Arabs and Muslims across the West, there was a need to put a brake on an administration increasingly blind to anything beyond overseas objectives directed by political fanatics, and domestic policies directed by religious fanatics. As flawed and weak as Kerry was, he represented the opportunity to put a brake on those political directions, and I still believe that the world would have been a better place if he had won. The left who refused to take that stance were left with the choice of supporting a far-left wacko from a selection of Stalinists (Workers World Party) and Barnesites (US-SWP), supporting little-guy-populist-without-the-popularity Ralph Nader, or abstaining. Most chose Nader or abstention. Kerry lost, and the rest is history.

This is a blog in the UK and if you check it out you'll find some interesting, some troubling and some explanation for some of the crap being posted here.

I expect I'll get flamed and attacked for this but I am actually trying to explain, if not just for myself, but to others who are concerned by some of the awful stuff that keeps popping up here. I don't like to keep blaming one candidates' people over others when I know there are great members supporting all three.

UPDATE: Insightful comment:

UPDATE - from comment from Pariah Dog

As a veteran of many a forum and interest group that has gone the way of the dinosaur, I've been livid by what I've been seeing here lately.

Well, let me rephrase that. I haven't actually been seeing it with my own eyes because I avoid candidate diaries like the plague. But I'm catching a whiff of it from comments (read rants).

The MO is right on track.

*boatload of newbies shows up over a couple weeks time.
*newbies start posting "topics" or "comments" that seem against the grain of the general population.
*insinuate your agenda commentary into as many threads as possible - whather they have anything to do with your agenda or not.
*every topic or comment is given a standing ovation by other newbies from the boat.
*wash, rinse, repeat.
*wait for long-timers to fall silent and start drifting away in disgust.
once site is a shadow of its former self, move on to next victim.

I find it interesting that this problem seemed to start soon after a certain TV blowhard declared fatwa on the site. It's been my hope that DKos is too vast and mature a community to have step 6 take hold (y'all are also not known for wearing kid gloves if you know what I mean).

•  finding answer tips please

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:56:06 AM PDT

  •  I agree, and it's a question I posed...

    ...in this diary.

    I have a request to the site admin.

    Can you do a 'run' or a 'search' or whatever it is you do, and let us know:

    how many posts share IP addresses with Presidential campaign sites?

    how many posters communicate from one IP address, but have WAY too many alter-egos?

    how many posts for [third rail topic] actually originate from the IP addresses of [lobbies and think-tanks with a vested interest in spreading FUD]?

    When a similar thing was done with Wikipedia, thanks to the work of one programmer, it's incredible how much was being put out there to deceive people. Companies glossing over ecological disasters, public people brushing over past indiscretions, think-tanks practicing revisionist history...

    The practice of checking Internet Protocol (IP) addresses is simple for the site admins, or at least it should be. You can do it with every email you get (just look at the Source code and there's a number that looks like this: 132.9.201.95) and even websites can be checked using WhoIs searches. It was because of a simple WhoIs search that the SwiftBoat debacle of 2004 was tracked right to the front door of the Donatelli Group, a group on the payroll of Bush-Cheney.

    I asked before and my post received ONE REPLY. SO I ask again. Admins - give people access to search for posting patterns. I want to see how many 'concerned Americans' are posting outside the country. I want to see how many "I am a Democrat" posters are posting from 64.203.98.129 (GOP.com), for example.

    by ShawnGBR on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:13:19 AM PDT

    •  I too would like to know who I'm dealing with

      especially when the attacks become really personal.
      Except for checking UID numbers and what other diaries someone has posted prior, there's no other way to keep it sane sometimes.  LOL!

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:35:43 AM PDT

    •  Diary recommended because I would also like to

      see where some of the crud is coming from. It would have significant impact if we could show deliberate subversion going on.

      by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:28:15 AM PDT

    •  that is a great idea! n/t

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:09:12 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for the link to your good question.

      One reply. No discussion. Zip. And a number of good points.

      The Wikipedia example is telling. I like it for a quick check on things that are not terribly important.  In the particular area for which I got paid some pretty good money for being an expert I've found some downright crazy changes and "facts" that just are not.

      I notice that this diary is now apparently off the chart with lists filled by repetitive junk. Not good. Not good at all.

      by pelagicray on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:18:25 AM PDT

•  maybe i just haven't had enough coffee

  but the article you cite isn't making a lot of sense, in part because Nader didn't run against Kerry.

  that said, i have wondered if dKos is being, er, infiltrated for lack of a better term, by teenagers, rethugs and resentful bitter homebound people. i don't think UKers or Troskyites or the like are to blame.

  by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:07:22 AM PDT

  •  It's obvious that

    now that DK has become so famous, there are RW folks joining just to troll. It's inevitable, and usually they out themselves pretty fast. (There was one yesterday sneering about "all you libs and Dems," which seemed pretty obvious.

    I guess it could be planned as part of a bigger conspiracy, but that's not what it looks like to me.

    by JoeW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:11:35 AM PDT

    •  The diarist seems to be suggesting

      infiltration by communist splinter groups.

      by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:13:26 AM PDT

      •  well

        i could see American trust fund babies who fancy themselves communists and all lefier than thou and etc.

        but real ones? hahahahahaha!

        by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:17:05 AM PDT

        •  er

          leftier

          ::dives into coffee pot headfirst::

          by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:17:54 AM PDT

        •  I don't particularly equate socialists with

          communists. I believe in many socialist concepts but not when they cross the line of anarchy or militant fanatical actions.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19:10 AM PDT

          •  I would think that infiltrators

            would more likely be from our own government or its toadies. What do alienated leftists have to gain by our demise? We're trying to hold the line against fascism, which I would think they'd agree with, at least.

            by marina on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:41:17 AM PDT

        •  I haven't seen a whole lot of

          old left philosphy posted here, have you?  What I've been seeing is people who sound like Republicans and argue against socialism.

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19:56 AM PDT

          •  Well some of the group is talking about

            a Revolution of sorts and there may be some spouting old left philosophy or new left Democrat stuff. I've seen quite a bit of that lately.

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:22:45 AM PDT

            •  I'm a splintered socialist

              by MadCityRag on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:25:38 AM PDT

              •  I'm a socialist,

                but I got a splinter in my finger recently.

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:45:25 AM PDT

                •  I thought you were a socialite with a splinter

                  by empathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:26:39 AM PDT

            •  if you're talking about that diary below

              it's a PFFer and MCatter. it's gotten very boring at those sites, so they need to come here and kick up some sand so they have something to bond over again.

              must be nice to have that little to do. ::sigh:: well, maybe not.

              by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:30:58 AM PDT

              •  That diary kind of inspired this one.

                "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

                by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:36:21 AM PDT

                •  well

                  he's - or is it she's? - far from a commie or an anarcho-syndicalist or whatever.

                  he's just a PFFer slash Mcatter. they get their stripes by posting at dKos so they have something to write about.

                  by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:38:24 AM PDT

                  •  For me, it helps to kind of know where

                    someone is coming from. What I see though is a lot of piling on from even some regular diarists who don't do their own research etc., And that concerns me. You know the spreading of right wing memes etc.,

                    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

                    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:43:09 AM PDT

                    •  oh definitely

                      my own response, because you can't reason with them, is to cut them off my list of potentially informative reading. iow, they have absolutely no credibility with me whatsoever, and i just assume everything they write is colored by their own - whatever.

                      they remind me of my dad when he began getting dementia from kidney failure and heart disease. sound just like him.

                      by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:49:07 AM PDT

                      •  I've started doing that too.

                        There are certain users now that I simply ignore--diaries and comments.  I wish we had an "ignore" button, so I didn't even have to see their names anymore.  I don't like feeling that way, because I tend to try to keep an open mind and make every effort to look at both sides.  But I've been slapped down too many times at this point.

                        by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:00:40 AM PDT

              •  I see what you mean now.

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:56:52 AM PDT

            •  I haven't seen it.

              I guess I'm reading different diaries than you are.  I've been seeing so much right wing stuff here that I find it disturbing.  I'm just hoping it will end at some point.

              You also seem to be drawing some kind of connection to Edwards.  Again, specificity would help.  What about some specific examples comments/diaries you question--with names removed, of course.

              by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:44:05 AM PDT

              •  The Edwards diaries are where I get slammed

                personally with identity and gender crap all the time and what bothers me is the complacency of some there who just let these off the wall comments slide by. And that maybe some don't care who is speaking or supporting their candidate and will take it from whoever which is precisely why I've had such a hard time actually hearing Edwards real message but because of the personal attacks have been so turned off by him.

                And because I have been made to feel defensive, which takes a lot, I have been curious as to what is going on.

                In the article I have diaried about the guy pretty much decides to go with Edwards as the lesser of the Democrat evils and if you check his site, it became apparent to me that within the Edwards stuff is where they will spout their stuff.

                At any rate, it makes me feel more positive toward Edwards, now concluding for myself that much of the hateful comments in the Edwards diaries are not coming from real Democrats.

                Does that make sense?

                "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

                by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:52:26 AM PDT

              •  if you're relying to me

                which i can't tell because of the margins, i'm actually more an Edwards supporter than anything.

                but if you're looking for examples, check the recent diary list entitled you poor dears. he's a PFFer and MCatter. also some recent comments to kos himself - straight off the front page of PFF. exact quotes.

                they're just trying to get something to talk about over there.

                the rest, tho - pseudointellectualism, Starbucks variety? that's actually a complaint (which i've found pretty valid :D) against a certain other candidate - it was expressed that way to me by someone else not even at dKos, but a Dem, but i've heard similar complaints from people. and they have certainly held up in my experience.

                by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:49 AM PDT

                •  I was reply to roseeriter, thanks for the

                  guidance.  I stayed out of candidate diaries until fairly recently, and I still don't read that many and when it starts to get ugly, I tend to check out.  

                  I support Edwards too at this point, but I recognize he won't get the nomination, so I'm trying to maintain an open mind on the other two candidates.  

                  What has bothered me most has been the really shocking stuff written about Hillary by Obama supporters.  What I've seen from many Obama supporters has made it really hard for me to be open to what he says.  But I'm trying.  I even went out and bought his book to see if that would help me.

                  by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:50:26 AM PDT

            •  Agents provocateurs

              are something we always must look out for. They are a fact, not a part of a conspiracy theory. We have a real conspiracy going on here.

              by marina on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:44:25 AM PDT

          •   no, i haven't seen it

            what i'm talking about is the pseudo-intellectualism (Starbucks variety) which springs from a life of relative comfort and indulgence. i don't think people like that would know Left if it walked up to them and introduced itself.

            as for rethug stuff and tactics, oh yea. especially from people i'm deeming emotionally and intellectually on the level of teenagers. very immature. and acting like freepers and spouting the same rhetoric as freepers.

            by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:29:39 AM PDT

            •  From style and word choice I suspect a few I've

              seen intruding into the non-candidate threads are indeed too young to vote.

              I stay out of clear candidate food fights. What is irritating is to enter another subject area and finding the fight is spilling out of the play pen.

              by pelagicray on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

      •  I would suggest...

        ...infiltration by everyone and their mother.

        It's not exactly difficult to post on the site. You register, you log into the site, you post.

        Once you're in, you can hack away. I don't mean 'hack' in the computer sense ...I mean 'socially hack'. To borrow the words of Depeche Mode:

        You can't change the world
        But you can change the facts
        And when you change the facts
        You change points of view
        If you change points of view
        You may change a vote
        And when you change a vote
        You may change the world.

        All it takes for someone to 'change the facts' is throw enough shit until some of it sticks. The truth gets buried, lies become the truth, and most people don't have the inclination to burrow deep into every issue they come across to find out the truth.

        And throwing shit is as easy as posting attack diaries and stirring things up in the Comment sections.

        The surest way to cut through it is by knowing just how much of what we're seeing is just your Average Joe or Josephine posting on their lunch break ...and how much is an intern, working for Candidate X, getting the word out by fair means or foul.

        by ShawnGBR on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:20:46 AM PDT

    •  i also suspect ...

      ... quite a few teenagers if not in age, then in emotional and intellectual maturity - and people who are homebound for whatever reason with nothing better to do and a shitload of resentment to spew.

      by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:15:17 AM PDT

      •  That's the internet, no? nt

        by burrow owl on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:20:59 AM PDT

        •  I have to admit

          I'm in my pajamas right now.

          by JoeW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:24 AM PDT

          •  that's cheating!

            i mean, it is 6 am here.

            by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:25:14 AM PDT

            •  dang!

              You're on to me.

              by JoeW on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:32:51 AM PDT

          •  Wow.

            You have pajamas?  

            by willb48 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:54:07 AM PDT

      •  Ahem

        To be home-bound is not necessarily to be resentful.  Some of us can't go out on a regular basis.

        By the way, I'm still pulling for Biden.  So, I may be a tiny bit resentful, but it has nothing to do with being disabled.

        by willb48 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:52:16 AM PDT

        •  i'm talking about ...

          ... the homebound AND resentful. i know homebound people who are anything but resentful.

          by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM PDT

  •  I think its a combination of all that you state

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:11:51 AM PDT

•  ???!!!! I'm really confused by this diary.

  You need to get a whole lot more specific about what you are suggesting/implying.  

  by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:11:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm suggesting that much of the hateful stuff

    is coming from people who want to stir the pot and cause more havoc than we cause on our own.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:14:21 AM PDT

    •  oh definitely

      i mean, even PFFers or Mcatters. the only thing they share in common is hatred of dKos and various posters at dKos. and in recent weeks, their site has dwindled to a handful of embattled posters. so they come here to stir it up so they have reason to bond with one another yet again. i've spotted several of them over the past day alone.

      however ... it isn't just outsiders. given what i've seen of the emotional (and intellectual) maturity of some dKossians, including some old timers, they're prime bait for it and fueling it with all they got.

      by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:35 AM PDT

      •  Everyone seems to be running on emotion.

        Not critical thinking. We all need to stop the bashing. Its only adding fuel to the fire. We spend all our time reading these hit diaries and few are actually looking into what is really going on out there in Bush World. The Press and MSM are having a field day making stories out of nothing and Hillary and Obama are both insecure and are lashing out at each other. And it continues. Its hurting the Party. This turns people off. The slash and burn must stop if we are going to have a chance in Nov. Remember, Bush has a Sept. or Oct. surprise waiting for us. Its their plan to win this year.

        by Owllwoman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:40:06 AM PDT

        •  Precisely my concerns also.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:43:47 AM PDT

        •  the problem is

          critical thinking requires some higher level cognitive skills, and i'm beginning the doubt the presence of such in the worst of the candidate bashers - despite whatever degrees they might have.

          as for the rest of what you say, agree 100% and fulfilling the predictions of the freepers who told me years ago Dems will never win because they eat their own.

          by Runs With Scissors on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:44:31 AM PDT

        •  I avoid them and it still has an effect.

          The most noted is that the bad drives out the good. That has been noted over and over.

          I have to agree with the comment from Pariah Dog:

          As a veteran of many a forum and interest group that has gone the way of the dinosaur, I've been livid by what I've been seeing here lately.

          Since the old BBS days I've noted the same. One very good special interest historical group was wrecked within a matter of months by such activity. I was a moderator and ruthlessly deleted the off topic and sometimes spiteful comments. There is only so much that can be done when a mob swamps a few. The board shut down and has never been replaced by one of any quality.

          The site administration here should probably post "The bad drives out the good" over their screens.

          by pelagicray on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:45:28 AM PDT

•  In an open, transparent society

  isn't this what we WANT ?

  I mean, I'm not exactly young
  and the whole internet-as-leveller
  kind of meme-thing is foreign to me,
  and not exactly comfortable,
  BUT either we are for the potential for anybody to participate
  or we are elitists.

  Personally, I'm more COMFORTABLE with my kind of ELITISM,
  but I figure if we're about a society of the rabble-for-the-rabble
  we ought to welcome the hits from everybody.

  Afterall, if we are inclusive,
  there IS NO outside.

  by slowheels on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:42:55 AM PDT

  •  But there also need to be consequences. If people

    misdirect, or lie, or use unnecessarily inflammatory language, at some point it is for the health of the community for there to be consequences. Those consequences don't need to be banning as a first choice. Clear and factual responses are the first level, but being able to show that there is a pattern of posting can cast sunlight on posters who are not being good citizens.

    by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:39:16 AM PDT

•  You can take it to the bank

  As a veteran of many a forum and interest group that has gone the way of the dinosaur, I've been livid by what I've been seeing here lately.

  Well, let me rephrase that. I haven't actually been seeing it with my own eyes because I avoid candidate diaries like the plague. But I'm catching a whiff of it from comments (read rants).

  The MO is right on track.

  1. boatload of newbies shows up over a couple weeks time.

  2. newbies start posting "topics" or "comments" that seem against the grain of the general population.

  3. insinuate your agenda commentary into as many threads as possible - whather they have anything to do with your agenda or not.

  4. every topic or comment is given a standing ovation by other newbies from the boat.

  5. wash, rinse, repeat.

  6. wait for long-timers to fall silent and start drifting away in disgust.

  7. once site is a shadow of its former self, move on to next victim.

  I find it interesting that this problem seemed to start soon after a certain TV blowhard declared fatwa on the site. It's been my hope that DKos is too vast and mature a community to have step 6 take hold (y'all are also not known for wearing kid gloves if you know what I mean).

  by Pariah Dog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:04:02 AM PDT

  •  You should do a diary on this!

    Please! Many would be extremely grateful.

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:11:28 AM PDT

    •  I thought

      everybody already knew about these... well, calling them people seems a tad generous.

      I'm kind of an net and technological troglodyte. Been online for some time now, but most people can run rings around me.

      What I'm trying to say is - I have a tendency to think if I know something then everybody must know it. But I've been seeing several folks on here posit this same question, so maybe they aren't as familiar with online assassins as I assumed.

      They exist, trust me. They generally target any site that's off the beaten path (according to their definition). I've personally watched the demise of at least four fairly large and diverse communities where people discussed topics that were... let's say out of the mainstream. I've talked to people who've had the same experience elsewhere.

      It's not like said sites were hurting anyone. It's not like they were forcing their opinions on anyone. We were just DIFFERENT.

      One reason I joined Kos is because it was huge and given to no-nonsense when it came to trolls. I still maintain that this will be its saving grace.

      Keep in mind the steps I mentioned and watch for them. By their fruits you will know them. Once identified, avoid attempting coherent conversation with them. It ain't gonna happen because that's not what they're here for.

      by Pariah Dog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:38:40 AM PDT

      •  Its the proof I look for so I stop making

        wrong  accusations and want that in return. So Thanks. Hope you don't mind that I spread your comment around.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:55:40 AM PDT

        •  Spread Away!

          Oh, one other thing to look for with them. Those who aren't so much "anti" the site's general tone, but in fact take it way over the top. That is to say, start making extremist comments and advocating activities that make the place look like a haven for nutcakes. Wish I could think of a classic example, but it's still early.

          by Pariah Dog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:08:12 AM PDT

          •  Thank you!

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

      •  Diary! Diary! I'll recommend it. There are a lot

        of people here who do not have  your breadth of experience, and your insight might be very helpful to them to recognize what is needed.

        by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:40:50 AM PDT

        •  Well

          Thank you for the vote of confidence, but that's a taller order than you might imagine.

          It's kind of like the old saying - "I don't know art, but I know what I like."

          Nonetheless, I'll give a crash course right here and now and hope it'll suffice

          The appearance of site assassins is more of an oogy feeling that comes over me when certain things start happening. Complicating the matter is the fact that those things vary, if only in small ways, according to the site.

          Again, I can't comment explicitly in this case because I haven't actually seen the activity in question, but the general outline is in my original comment. I made the observation according to things I've seen mentioned about the events of late. Every one of them sounded all too familiar.

          It starts with one or two people who are brand spankin' new... many times joining on the same day or within a couple days of each other.

          They will then proceed to do one of two things. They may initially claim complete agreement/interest with the philosophy or subject of forum, only to quickly begin stating an alternate POV that's just a trifle off-putting.

          Or they may dispense with the appearance of like-mindedness altogether and go right for the "well, I'm a supporter/student of/activist for _____ too, but let me tell you all precisely how full of shit you are. HERE'S how it should be done. And I know because I've been at this since I was sixteen!" They will conveniently neglect to mention that they are now a well-seasoned seventeen. It should be noted here, however, that these tactics have been picked up on by certain agenda focused adult groups as well.

          In either case, you will notice that a small cheering section materializes out of thin air. You won't recognize any of them either. Eventually even a couple of the established members will begin to chime in with them. If in the next week or two you notice that they seem to know each other just a bit too well considering their short tenure - as in mentioning personal things that haven't been discussed in the community at large - you can bet the farm something is going on behind the scenes.

          No matter the topic, there they'll be. Quite often they will give passing nod to the subject of a diary or post, but began the thread-jacking almost immediately. By that I mean they will literally flood the comments with yakkity yak that has nothing at all to do with the original subject. Or it will, but only in the sense that the author is completely wrong.

          This will happen again and again in numbers that suggest these people do nothing but sit at a computer all day posting breathless commentary and/or glad-handing each other.

          But don't you dare call them on it! To even whisper the slightest suggestion that they're causing a problem - intentionally or not - will unleash a pile-on of biblical proportions. There will be vehement outrage, weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments. Accusations will fly. Most often a full blown flame war erupts. This will occur even if the original subject was puppies and kittens.

          In time older members you enjoyed talking with will stop posting well-thought out topics. Then they'll stop commenting. Then they'll drift away with or without notice. Viola! The entire focus of the site changes and you're left with a place that no longer holds any allure for you. You take your leave too.

          Interestingly enough, I've checked back into a couple of these sites months later. Know what I found? The ones who caused it all are gone too. There's no reason for them to stay as they've succeeded in their quest.

          I think perhaps the biggest problem identifying this here at Kos is that this is truly an enormous community. People are coming and going all the time. I've been here for nearly a couple years now and still run across people I think are new, only to find they were posting long before I showed up.

          It very likely isn't the first time it's happened either. Nor will it be the last. A site like this is like a gigantic magnet for this type of mole, and I suggest that ignoring them ruthlessly is our best, if not only, defense.

          by Pariah Dog on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:03:10 AM PDT

  •  "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

    Klaatu had a point:

    Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves and hired policemen to enforce them. We, of the other planets, have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority is, of course, the police force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk.

    Gort? Where are you?

    Community policing is usually either tainted with vigilante justice or too weak to withstand gangs, particularly in on line discussion groups. Either is a poor substitute for some real enforcement by site owners. One problem here, where site administration finally did take some action, may be the food fight group acting to make each other TUs.

    by pelagicray on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

•  Anarchists and Socialists are welcome here....

  particularly those who support Democrats.  I'm happy to see more voices on this site that represent a broad spectrum of the left.  Including some from the UK or Europe.

  The Ron Paul fans, however, seem to have come to the wrong place. Aside from opposing the Iraq war, nothing else Ron Paul stands for has much place in the progressive movement.  

  by acerimusdux on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:20:17 AM PDT

  •  nothing else?

    like opposing the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs and corporate welfare?  Being against the monolithic executive concept?  Jeeze, and here I thought those were things Democrats opposed too.  And here you are telling me that the Dems are interested in maintaining the current situation.

    Like some on the Right and Left back in the late `60s and early `70s discovered, there's more in common between some of "politically opposite" groups than between them and their more centralist supposed Party fellows.  Don't treat politics as a religion, taken unthinkingly on faith; try to really understand what you opponents are saying, not just following doctrine handed down by the high priests party spokespeople.  Try to see the differences in the other side, don't lump them all together as a uniform group, the way the Republicans do with "Democrat party libruls".

    Paul's been useful in making the GOP spend money opposing him rather than in opposing Democrats, and in getting some Fox News followers to become former Fox News viewers (where they go next is an open question).  He's also likely the GOP candidate the Democrats would want to run against, as he's more obviously outside the mainstream than Romney or McCain, or Giuliani who fortunately seems to have buried himself through too-typical big city political sleaze.  

    by wondering if on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:55:47 AM PDT

•  Uh-Oh!

  Comrades, our evil plans for blog domination have been foiled! Someone must have blown my cover!

  by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:27:20 AM PDT

  •  it's the ice ax in your head

    gives you away every time...

    by wondering if on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:57:43 AM PDT

    •  Darn!

      ...and I thought coming on with a cracked skull was a way to blend in.

      by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:19:59 AM PDT

      •  It's the horse disguise

        that gives you away. The ice ax is somewhat expected, but the horse outfit is a dead give away.

        by Mad Kossack on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:59:11 AM PDT

        •  It was supposed to be...

          ...a donkey!

          by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:16:02 AM PDT

          •  lol!

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:25:30 AM PDT

            •  It's just that...

              ...all the donkey suits had already been taken by Republicans.

              by Trotsky the Horse on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:47:10 AM PDT

•  Alert the FBI ! Quickly!

  The Reds are under the bed! They are entering your computer through the Series of Tubes! They are sapping our Precious Bodily Fluids!

  DailyKos risks becoming nothing but a Front Group unless we all come forward and Inform the authorities about the Communists in our midst!  Only those who hate America and owe their allegiance to their Kremlin masters would disagree!

  Please contact your local FBI office and let them know who the Communists are.  It is your duty as an American!

  by Mad Kossack on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:57:53 AM PDT