Skip to main content

Not everyone reading this today will remember Hubert H. Humphrey, one of the great post-war, liberal Democrats. He was elected mayor of Minneapolis in 1948 before being elected US Senator, then Vice President under Lyndon Johnson and, after losing the presidency to Richard Nixon in a squeaker in 1968, became a Senator again until his death.

LBJ is rightly credited with leaving America a legacy of remarkable Great Society advances but it was Humphrey who maneuvered the massive amount of legislation through a balky Senate largely controlled by Southern, conservative, often openly racist, Dixiecrats – the Sixties version of "Blue Dogs" – who stood in the way of everything from Medicare and civil rights to equal opportunity laws and voting rights.

For several years when I was a teen, Vice President Humphrey was also my family's sort-of neighbor. My parents were active in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, which is what Democrats in Minnesota call themselves, so we got to know the Humphrey's well enough to be invited over for an occasional summer Sunday afternoon at their lakeside backyard.

One of the things I remember him complaining about was what made it so difficult to achieve progress on social justice legislation.

"I can deal with Republicans and the Dixiecrats," the Vice President proclaimed numerous times when talking politics with us, his favorite subject. "But heaven save me from liberals. The biggest enemy of liberals is other liberals. They quarrel with me over everything and nothing, all the time."

I got my own first-hand taste of that yesterday, learning it's as true in now as it was in the Sixties and leaving me startled to discover there are as many trolls and flame throwers on the left as there are on the right.


My life lesson came as a result of the article I wrote Wednesday based on original reporting I mostly stumbled into about rumors in Washington regarding a possible post in a second Obama term for Dr. Paul Krugman.

As an almost-lifelong journalist – both by education and profession – I've developed a large number of contacts in the US and elsewhere in politics and government, business, the arts, and activist groups. I wrote about almost nothing but politics and government from 2000 through 2009, when a serious illness returned that became the first in a series of cascading events leading to my becoming homeless.

In touching base with someone who is both a friend and a source in Washington, a well-connected lawyer I've known for a decade and trust implicitly, I learned of the possibility. A few more calls to see if these were actual rumors and I believed there was enough substance to write the story.

By four o'clock, it was published at a LA daily news outlet and at a UK magazine. I've been writing for both since early 2008 and I cross-posted the piece at Daily Kos. For the first few hours, reader comments were about what might be expected: Some people expressed a desire for it to happen; some said it was unlikely because Obama is too much of a centrist to take the Keynesian's advice; many felt that Krugman wouldn't want an appointment. Fair enough: Everyone is entitled to their opinion and, frankly, I shared some of the same doubts.

In any event, the story didn't say it was going to happen and made clear the article was reporting a rumor that I'd been told by more than one source; indeed, the headline itself was expressed as a question. In the piece, I referred to what Krugman had written previously about why he wouldn't be interested in working in The White House.

But within a few hours, it was as if the girl with a dragon tattoo had kicked over a hornet's nest. Out of nowhere – and, suspiciously, all at once – a group of comments began appearing in rapid succession attacking me for reporting the story, questioning my integrity, wondering how a homeless man could possibly have any sources, insisting that if the rumor was true the piece would have been in The New York Times first, and all but demanding that I be drawn-and-quartered.


I've been attacked before for my work; it comes with being a journalist.

For example, in 2005 I wrote Washington's Darkest Secret, using multiple sources to reveal that for years before 9/11, the CIA had a "mole" inside al Qaeda providing intelligence to Washington about bin Laden's plans and activities – including plans to highjack airplanes to strike US targets. The right swarmed all over me and I was labeled everything from a liar to a terrorist sympathizer to a truther. I stood by the story and over the years, each piece of what I wrote more than seven years ago was borne out by other reporters. The latest confirmation came this summer by journalists at both the Associated Press and New York Times.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I authored Alaskans Speak about how Sarah Palin was regarded by people back home; follow-up pieces reported on management problems she was causing for John McCain citing sources of mine who were working on the inside. The article went viral and, again, the right wing swooped down to accuse me of everything except killing Jesus. No less a crazy than Michelle Malkin considered my reporting so dangerous to the career of the newest darling of the fringe that she devoted an entire blog post to trying to discredit me. Beyond the fact that the editor's spent a half-day on the phone fact checking my piece, all of the major components of that story were confirmed by the books written after the election by McCain campaign insiders.

Over the years, other articles have attracted equal vitriol, if on a smaller scale. I actually received a hate e-note for a recollection of Molly Ivins that I wrote after she died.

But those came from the right. I was totally unprepared for the onslaught of unvarnished hatred and illogical fury that flew at me from the left out of nowhere yesterday.


My first thought was that unlike, say, Red State where anyone to the political left of Chris Christie is booted off the site almost immediately, a group of right wing trolls held secret accounts at Daily Kos. The flurry of hate notes appeared so suddenly and simultaneously that it made me suspicious.

What some commenter's said deepened my wariness. For example, one actually found a 2008 right wing site that had attacked the Palin article and posted a chunk of it as gospel, as if something from a fringe website would discredit the article and me.

More to the point, I wondered why a handful of people were going to so much trouble and effort to take on a frankly innocuous, 900-word piece about a bit of tittle-tattle.

Some of the comments were bizarre. One suggested that if I was a real reporter, I'd be working for the Times or some other MSM outlet. Actually, I used to be very MSM but walked away from it a long time ago.

I was attacked for being homeless, the poster thinking it impossible for a homeless man to have news sources. Actually, I can thank being a techno-Luddite for having my contact list. I never succumbed to the lure of Outlook or smart phones – until I became homeless, I never had a cell phone – so my contacts are in a hand-written pocket directory with yellowing pages.

I lost most of my material possessions when I left the house but my phone directory went with me.

Someone else wondered why I provided no links, as if original reporting was impossible. In other words, if someone else didn't say it first, then it couldn't be true. The funniest was a complaint from a reader who couldn't find anything similar on Google. It reminded me of a story John Chancellor often told about his days as a correspondent covering the civil rights movement for NBC.

From somewhere in the Deep South, Chancellor called a Huntley-Brinkley producer in New York to approve his script before recording the narration. When he was done reading it aloud, the producer was doubtful: "John, that's not what The New York Times is saying."

"We don't get the Times down here," Chancellor replied.

"But it's not what UPI is reporting, either."

"I don't have access to the UPI wire."

"Well, if you don't have the Times or UPI, where are you getting your information?" the producer demanded knowing.

It's called reporting. Journalism 101. Talking to people and then writing about what was learned.

Over The Top

Some of the flame throwing was so over-the-top as to be ludicrous, a silly exercise in trolling from the left that beggars belief. One commenter was so enflamed that he wrote his own piece, all but claiming that I was single-handedly destroying the reputation of the entire site. I would include a link but can't find the article today.

I often post articles that reflect original reporting, from my Suddenly Homeless series to a report Monday about a proposed new national voter registration law that would cover elections for Congress, the Senate and White House. Where appropriate in my articles, I always include links but, for instance, in the Monday piece they were mostly to Supreme Court decisions.

Why not more links? Because by its very definition, original reporting is new as in news and there's nothing to link to.

More than anything, though, yesterday's experience got me thinking about a comment at a homeless piece a week or so ago. The article received a handful of views and comments along with some "rec's" but a reader was furious there weren't more.

"This place is for so-called liberals," he wrote, or words close to these. "It's a funny way to define 'liberal'."

Hubert Humphrey would have known what he meant.

Please follow me on Twitter @SuddenlyHomeles and "like" this article on Facebook.

When my book on middle class homelessness is published, I've pledged part of any royalties to The National Center for Family Homelessness.

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

  •  I remember his red baiting duplicity very well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I remember how he turned McCarthyite when it suited him.  I remember the anti-communist legislation he co sponsored.  Yes and all the good people on the left that he hurt.  Please never forget what  he really was.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:47:20 AM PDT

  •  I wondered about the comments made about you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamieG from Md

    thanks for this diary .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:47:39 AM PDT

  •  I feel you entirely. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Charley James

    I see you post regularly on Krugman's blog. But frankly, I don't even care about your credentials.

    I call myself a liberal, yet no group of people seems to irritate me more on a personal level. It comes with the territory I suppose, especially nowadays. Everyone wants to be a paragon and arbiter of truth, to the degree that they forget their own environment and their own fallibility. Been there, got the T-Shirt.

    I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil.

    by ReverseThePolarity on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:47:56 AM PDT

  •  Can you explain why your diary (12+ / 0-)

    said "reports surfaced" about Krugman when in fact there were no reports -- just your two anonymous sources?  Maybe that's why we were asking for links -- you know -- to the reports that had surfaced.

    "This is not class warfare. It's math." - Barack Obama 9/19/11

    by DaveV on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:48:33 AM PDT

  •  The Truth at Last (14+ / 0-)

    I always knew Adam B was the mother of all right wing, sleeper trolls.


    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:50:31 AM PDT

  •  Are you saying? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That liberals are a contentious lot?

    THAT'S IT! You've just made an enemy for life! shakes fist

  •  Did they want to hunt you down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and beat your face in?
    Or wish you would come down with a horrible disease?
    I got that in response to my recent post.
    And that's because I tied Obama's debate performance to his administration's record.
    Not an unusual observation but somehow it hit a nerve.
    I guess it just goes with the territory.

  •  Certainly you would not be suggesting dkos... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...members should be less discerning or more vulnerable to being spoon fed unsubstantiated reporting!

    Why not make adjustments in writing style so as to highlight what you're writing rather than the writer. Besides, I imagine John Chancellor worked many years before he could report relying merely his own word.

    Let all Bush tax cuts expire and , bring on the Sequestration cuts to defense.

    by kck on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

  •  At 63, I've lived 2/3 of my life without links. (5+ / 0-)

    While I sometimes wonder how I ever got along without the instant "information-iness" that they provide, I do nevertheless remember being able to amass considerable information back in the dark ages. Sometimes even, as you suggest, by talking to other humans.

    lol.  (I remember when that referred to an actual sound, as well....)

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:07:14 PM PDT

    •  Crucial difference, though: (8+ / 0-)

      even in the pre-internet days, you'd be able to source that considerable information to books, articles, or other humans.   No one would be raising hackles if the diary were link-less but indicated something about who or where this information came from, or other places to confirm it.

      I don't think the problem here is with original reporting: it's with original reporting on very big, insider issues with no other sources and no indication of veracity other than 'trust me', from a diarist whose record indicates some considerable dead ends from other 'trust me' stories (see: Sarah Palin's alleged 'Sambo' comment).  At some point it's unreasonable to ask people to extend that trust, and doubly unreasonable when it's someone who's been raising funds at this site (and others).  

      Furthermore, someone who's been at this for a long time should understand why there's a credibility gap, rather than bristle at the audacity of his readers/liberals.  

      I have no idea who this pseudonymous user is, but he's not doing anything to earn my trust as a reader.  I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:21:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To some, status is a zero sum game (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch, arodb, enhydra lutris

    Some people think, if you gain status, someone must lose status, as there is a fixed amount to go around, everyone's worth can be rated numerically on a scale, and no two people can hold the same rank. I call these people hierarchical and authoritarian, whatever political label they may want to apply to themselves. Anyone who gets a good scoop will be attacked, because if they gain status, the attackers lose status. You aren't the first person with an interesting story to get savaged by these bastards. They attacked the person who first noted the "47%" video!

    This may come as a surprise, but many liberals are hierarchical and authoritarian to the core. You may remember Phil Ochs wrote a song called "Love me, I'm a liberal" parodying these scumbag authoritarian liberals. It's been updated several times over the generations by various artists, because liberals keep being authoritarian scumbags.

    Progressives, by and large, are much better. We could use a few more progressives and a few less liberals around here.

    •  Interesting first part and then.... (0+ / 0-)

      You made a provocative point, but did you really need the acrimony of "scumbag authoritarian liberals"   You are describing a rather general finding, that we have resentment for those who become elevated, thinking why not us.  It's a variation of "Shadenfreud" that we try not to be aware of.

      •  But they are! (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, are you really defending scumbag authoritarian liberals? Or are you claiming they don't exist?

        Note well: I am not saying all liberals are scumbag authoritarians.

        Do you think  that Phil Ochs was wrong when he wrote, "Love me, I'm a liberal." Were the liberals he was describing nice people?

        •  there are scumbag authoritarian (fill in the blank (0+ / 0-)

          Sure, any ideological group can fall in love with their ideas and be obnoxious or worse to those who deviate in any way.

          I guess it's a limit of our language.  Internet messages-email, blogs or comments really don't have tone made clear, and we can't convey exactly what is being expressed.  

          I don't know the Phil Ochs reference, so that did not modify your message.   And to me, liberal and progressive are synonyms.  

          But now I get you.

  •  Meh. "Reports," "sources"... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    campionrules, Adam B, pico, Shawn Russell

    Ignore those complaints. The best serious journalism is always ex sphinctere...

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:11:59 PM PDT

  •  Let's just drill down on one, verifiable "fact" (11+ / 0-)
    Beyond the fact that the editor's spent a half-day on the phone fact checking my piece, all of the major components of that story were confirmed by the books written after the election by McCain campaign insiders.
    Which book confirmed that Gov. Palin referred to President Obama as a "sambo" and  Hillary Clinton as a "bitch"?

    Let me guess: literary license.

  •  Democratic Farm Labor Party (0+ / 0-)

    Whatever happened to labor?  And would HHH brag about Reagan tweaks (retirement age) to Social Security?  But Hubert did abandon us on the war and I expect we'll get bipartisan support for the war machine in the next debate.  Just reminds me I am still losing the battle I lost in 1968.

  •  Your article was poorly executed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rooe, crose, Neuroptimalian

    You don't state something and assume everyone will accept it. You lay out what you know and how you know it. Say that you talked to someone who you think knows and he/she said such-and-such. Admit that you can't back it up because of anonymity of the source but you personally trust the source. Then when people call it into question admit the fuzziness of the story and say you just hope it is true. All of that would avoid this kind of thing. Instead you get petulant about people's healthy doubt. I think that did you more harm than the original article.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:23:56 PM PDT

  •  There's some free floating anger in this site... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris

    and sometimes it just comes out and locates a target.  I've been one before, and it's always surprising.  Right now reading the diaries on the debate, there is a single tone...hatred and ridicule of one of the debaters dominating.

    I've drafted two diaries, one an analysis of Romey's statement about deductions for moving a factory off shore. It's a serious bit of analysis on globalism v. protectionism and our tax system and existing treaties.  

    But, it doesn't fit the tone of what's happening right now, and it could turn ugly if someone read it a certain way.  So, I'll keep it in draft form, and it did clarify my thinking on it.

    I just skiimed your essay on Krugman and while it is no better or worse than much of what passes for news, higher than many Internet and not much less legit than mainstream media, I see nothing to justify those HRs.

    And there is an auto ban, so people like myself with hundreds of diaries stored here will not take a chance to write a perspective that could be swarmed, as your's was.

    •  While I somewhat agree with your assessment, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nanorich, Neuroptimalian, trumpeter

      I don't agree 100%.

      That Krugman article was presented as Journalism when, in fact, it wasn't.  The article started with the statement:

      Reports surfaced today that Nobel Prize Winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman will be offered the job of chairman for the White House Council of Economic Advisors.
      I found it unbelievable that this administration would make this offer to Krugman or that he would accept. So, I went and searched the web for more reports on this.


      If the author would have restated his argument, I would have pulled my hide rate.  A Journalist would be more careful with his wording.  

      Something like, senior administration officials suggested that Krugman was on a short list...., but no; the author now argues his detractor are trolls and cites "literary license" for his wording.  

      •  There were no reports. (4+ / 0-)

        The author has admitted that was fiction.

        •  And that was one of the reasons I hide rated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nanorich, Shawn Russell

          that piece.

          Now, if he would have wrote something about how economic policy might be affected with Krugman in that position, it might have been interesting.

        •  Link to the admission please, you have no (0+ / 0-)

          particular credibility on the matter, you know.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:43:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  So the link discloses who is making shit up (0+ / 0-)

              out of thin air, and it is you. He did not admit to making anything up, but claims that his use of "reports" to mean"reports" and not some bullshit out of your personal private language is at worst "literary license>"

              Somebodyh is playing fast and loose with the facts and the english language all right, but it isn't the diarist.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:30:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It means he made it up. (0+ / 0-)

                There were no "reports" other than his own substantiating his claim.  Can we agree on that?

                •  Bullshit. You have no evidence to support that (0+ / 0-)

                  claim, and have falsely asserted that he admitted making the whole thing up.  

                  You cannot honestly and truthfully state that there were no reports because you cannot possibly know whether there were or not. The mere fact that there were no WEB PAGES does not mean that there were no reports. Go buy a dictionary and look up the word report. A report doesn't need to be published anywhere, let alone on the web. A report does not need to be written. But, of course, you already are well aware of that unless you never watch TV news and never listen to the radio.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:44:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The diarist himself says there were none. NT (0+ / 0-)
                    •  I really disbelieve that and assume that you (0+ / 0-)

                      are maliciously misconstruing and twisting his words as yoou did with that completely false assertion that he admitted making the whole thing up.

                      I hope you're trying to con yourself, because I seriously doubt that you are fooling anybody else.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:52:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I know a lot of this is coming down to semantics, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Adam B

                    but if I can back Adam on this, the problem isn't so much that the diarist doesn't have specifically posted sources - that does happen sometimes, when original reporting is involved - but that the circumstances here warrant a little more skepticism:

                    The diarist has a history of reports that have not only never been confirmed, but stretched his credibility quite a bit.  The example in the diary, "Alaskans Speak", was incredibly inflammatory and never confirmed, despite what the diarist says.   His last diary before the Krugman one cited insider information about Jesse Jackson, Jr. that, to be charitable, stretched belief even more.   At some point readers can't be expected to extend that trust, just because someone says so.

                    I don't think it's unreasonable for readers to ask for something more than just the word of a pseudonymous blogger.  When professional journalists cite anonymous sources, they at least use their own names in order to establish credibility.  I don't see that here.  I see an ugly attempt to blame reader skepticism on 'liberals', as if reader skepticism hadn't been pushed to its limits already.  

                    Maybe "Charley James" really does have the professional connections and resume he claims to have, but his writing here has been severely unprofessional, and I can't blame anyone for reacting negatively.

                    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                    by pico on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:51:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Soprry, Adam has been spewing false (0+ / 0-)

                      statements throughout this thread, so this whole bit about "history" and "credibility" applies equally well to him. If you want to throw rocks at somebody, pick a justification that will hold up.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:54:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No he hasn't. (0+ / 0-)

                        You've disagreed with his reading of the diary, but there's nothing false about anything he's said, at all.

                        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                        by pico on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually there are several falsehoods. (0+ / 0-)

                          He keeps insisting without any remote possibility of any basis in fact that there were no reports and no sources. He said the diarist admitted something and couldn't back it up with anything but a blatant intentianal misconstruction and distortion of one of the diarist's statements.

                          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                          by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:09:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, he says the diarist backtracked (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Adam B

                            by calling the reports "literary license".  That's not a falsehood, or misconstruction.  But anyway.  You're being way unreasonable on this.  If you want to keep this as your line in the sand, fine, but it'll be my last comment on the point.

                            Whether you want to argue about it or not, the diarist's credibility is severely harmed here, and isn't going to recover easily.  That's a fact, and one he can change if he's willing to be more transparent.   If not...

                            (Adam's cred is just fine, and hasn't changed, whether you like that or not.)

                            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                            by pico on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:35:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, "reports" doesn't mean (0+ / 0-)

        "web pages", never has, so your entire commentary goes directly into the toilet. Of coourse, it is unlikely that such a preposterous misinterpretation of english ws the real reason for the HR, so it isn't truly relevant.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:43:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B

          I don't understand your anger. However, CJ did admit that he used literary license in using the words "reports."  

          •  When enough people use the same stupid (0+ / 0-)

            abuse of the language to attack you, it is often easiest to simply go along, though that accomplishes nothing when it is an excuse and not a reason.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  impressive (6+ / 0-)

    so now you play the victim card. those of us who believe in old-fashioned things like evidence are "trolls and flame throwers". Doubling up on the attitude does nothing to increase the believability of yesterday's story.

    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" - John Adams

    by esquimaux on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:38:48 PM PDT

  •  I tried, I asked you for some way to verify (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    anything about who you are and where you can demonstrate some veracity other than your self aggrandizing assertions.

    This complaint is understandable, but the way you have done it is making it worse. You are burning your bridges before you crawl under them.

    What don't you understand about veracity and credibility?

    You understand we have a long history here of people faking crap for all kinds of reasons right?

    Charley, right?

    That you claim to be something that relies on your personal identity and then you also act as if you want anonymity is pretty stupid.

      It's almost as if you are asking to be outed rather than helping anyone here stretch their neck out for you and attempt to verify who you are.

    At this point, after all this, IS THERE NO ONE no one, after all this experience of your, is there no one here on dkos who will say 'I know this guy, you can trust him"????

    Geebus Charley, I know IRL three people here on dkos and I am a total reclusive nobody.
      If asked they would no doubt say I am not an insect.

     Why don't you have anybody here, if you are Somebody?

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:24:59 PM PDT

  •  The only way to police (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, ffour, angry marmot

    an open forum like this is to call bullshit on reports masquerading as journalism that are merely gossip.

    If an honest post of yours got caught up in that, that would be bad.  But "reports surfaced" means you want us to think that actual, non-self-proclaimed journalists have published such reports.  And now of course it is all Dkos's fault.

    You need to lay back and read the site awhile before contributing any more.

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:37:17 PM PDT

  •  The simple fact is that there are a lot of folks (0+ / 0-)

    who get their jollies throwing doughnuts, and any excuse or target will do. There are others who fear that some clown somewhere out in the intertubes will think they are stupid by association if something posted here gets a bunch of recs and turns out to be false, so they try to hide it in self defense. There are others who really think that the rules say to HR everything not proven or not reported in the Wall Street Journal. There are many others who toss pastries for many other reasons as well.

    Some of those reasons are legit and some aren't, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.If you don't want to run the gauntlet of all that, never report anything significant or important that hasn't already been reported in/on an approved media source (be very careful who you cite, too).

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:54:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site