Skip to main content

I hope those who clicked on to this diary know by now that this is the quintessential meta diary, although I'm posting it because I think the issue is important enough to sort out in this online community.  Also, I wanted to get an idea about whether there is consensus about this topic since in the past I haven't been able to get a response from admin on the handful of inquiries I've sent (on other topics).

I'm going to keep this as straight forward as possible... I'm not sure if this happens to other diarist/writers or not, but on a few occasions I've written a diary, sometimes spending a couple of hours writing it, and after publishing it and re-reading it I realized that I don't like the way it came out, and I go ahead and unpublish it, or delete it.  Out of the almost 500 diaries I've written I may have done that maybe 6 or 7 times (if my memory serves me right).

Also, the handful of times I've done that, I usually unpublish the diary within a couple of minutes after having published it, trying not to inconvenience those who may have already engaged in the comment thread.

Now, here's why I think doing this sort of thing is not kosher... Imagine somebody writes a diary and right after publishing it, for whatever reason, the diarist feels that there is sensitive or potentially damaging information (maybe to him or herself, or to others), and after further consideration decides to unpublish or delete the diary?  Or it could be that the writer feels the diary was poorly written, etc.  It could be anything; it seems to me that's why we have the publish/unpublish/delete features.

In my case, the particular user in question has made comments questioning me about why I unpublished particular diaries, which I find kind of bizarre because it seems to me that one could answer "because I goddamned wanted to deleted and I don't owe you an explanation about it," but what I find truly bizarre is for this user to go out of his way to first get a cached copy of the deleted diary, and secondly, post a link to it in unrelated diaries.

What is the purpose of doing that?  Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that the person doing this is somehow trying to make some kind of point by posting the link to the cached copy of the deleted diary...

But the larger question I have for the Daily Kos community is this: Do you think this is acceptable behavior and that it contributes to an atmosphere of intelligent and respectful debate (as much as that is possible)?

Would you feel Okay if somebody did that to you?  Let's say you write a diary, then after re-reading it you decide you don't like it (for whatever reason) and unpublish it, just to have somebody take a cached copy of it and post it in links to unrelated comment threads?

Also, as I said, keep in mind that I've written almost 500 diaries and I've unpublished only a handful (6 or 7), and usually within minutes (not wanting to inconvenience potential readers).

Let me know what you think by participating in the poll below.

Thanks!  

Poll

Is it okay to get cashed copies of unpublished/deleted diaries of other writers and post links to it in unrelated comment threads?

61%99 votes
21%35 votes
17%28 votes

| 162 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Cached. (7+ / 0-)

    Vote rape. Vote torture. Vote War Crimes. Vote with the American top 1%.

    by Yellow Canary on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:06:22 PM PST

  •  What Would Happen if You Edited the Diary, (10+ / 0-)

    deleted all the content or down to a minimum amount of garbage characters, saved it and then deleted it?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:06:46 PM PST

  •  I think you mean cached (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    but I still don't get your point. If you want to delete a diary, and bring it back (assuming no HRs or admin action).. what's the problem?

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:08:15 PM PST

  •  Show me the money!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle, grover

    Oh wait, you mean "cached" not "cashed."

  •  that's just someone being a petty asshole... (10+ / 0-)

    to you...

     But I don't think you're looking for closure on this issue more than you want to have a public fight with the person who is doing this to you.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:09:28 PM PST

  •  How do you get a cache copy of an unpublished (4+ / 0-)

    diary?  Are google bots hitting every possible link onsite and crawling them?  (I vaguely recall stumbling onto an unpublished diary by someone else once, but I'd be damned if I knew how to do it again.)

    It's weird, but unless the person is some sort of stalker, I dunno that it matters, and if they're already a stalker type, I don't see how it's any worse than any other behaviour they probably already engage in.

  •  without any other infor, seems like a bannable (5+ / 0-)

    offense to me

  •  no. /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:13:20 PM PST

  •  There's always... (11+ / 0-)

    this!

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:15:56 PM PST

  •  Two different issues. My thoughts... (17+ / 0-)

    1) Linking to a cached version of a deleted diary, and,
    2) Harassing you over deleted diaries.

    #1 is a technique. The diary is historical fact and if a cache is available it is available.  Using the cache is neither good nor bad.

    #2 is possibly a violation of site rules if it rises to the level of stalking.  

  •  I suppose (3+ / 0-)

    You didn't think it was fair when the 47% video was made public.

  •  Sounds like good reason to think twice (14+ / 0-)

    Maybe even thrice
    Before hitting the "publish" button.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:24:07 PM PST

    •  So you agree that should be common practice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie, DeadHead

      here at Daily Kos?  Just checking.

      •  Thinking twice before publishing? (13+ / 0-)

        I think I'm going to give it a try myself!

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:31:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nice way to put words in my mouth (10+ / 0-)

        Words I didn't say.

        The point I am making is that your concern is a good reminder to all to think carefully before hitting publish. As I believe another commenter pointed out, the internet lives forever.  

        I do not believe what you describe to be "common practice", but it does happen, and not infrequently, that someone posts some historical record that the orignial poster decided to delete for some reason. Reasons seem to run the gamut from a fit of pique to a fit of remorse to obliging the clamor of numerous commenters demanding "delete this diary".  I have rarely seen it done by someone who felt their own work did not live up to their own high editorial standards. Whatever the reasons, unless the diary is an utter embarassment to the poster and or the site, I think deletion is disprespectful to the community. As to whether such diaries should be resurrected, I don't really care one way or the other.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:36:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Deleted and unpublished are two differernt things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, DeadHead

          because nothing is ever truly deleted from DK servers.

          Unpublished is different, in that it remains on the servers, but it should not be visible to others.

          but it does happen, and not infrequently, that someone posts some historical record that the orignial poster decided to delete for some reason.
          Can you name one?  

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:41:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  To what purpose? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fisheye, Hey338Too, fcvaguy

            I really don't have time to scour through years of diaries and comments I've read to find some instances of it to satirsfy your idle curiosity. You've done enough reading here that I'm sure if you think really hard you can remember seeing such things a time or two yourself.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:50:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  From the standpoint of the end user... (7+ / 0-)

            ...does this distinction make any difference?

            Deleted and unpublished are two differernt things because nothing is ever truly deleted from DK servers.
            I don't have direct access to the database for the DK servers, and I doubt 99% of the people commenting on this thread do either. We can only see the material that the site's programming will fetch for us from the database.

            From that standpoint, it seems to me that there's no functional difference between "deleted" and "unpublished." In both instances, the author of a post has chosen to no longer make it available to the user community.

            Regardless, it's a basic fact that after one clicks the "Publish" button that makes their writing available to the public internet, they no longer have complete control over that content. They can remove the content later on from public view by those who are attempting to load the content anew, but they cannot control the choices of those who already loaded the content when it was public.

            If someone loaded and saved/cached the content while it was public, the person who published the content does not have the power to demand that the person who saved that content delete it. The person who published the material chose to make the content available to the public the second they clicked "Publish."

            For those who know that they are inclined to rethink their words from time to time, it would behoove them to consider that fact carefully before choosing to click the "Publish" button.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:29:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excellent comment. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too, kurt

              © grover


              So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

              by grover on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:40:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, but that is not the issue here. Again, simple (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead

              question... If you publish a diary and within minutes unpublish it or delete it, would you be okay if somebody posted a link to a cached copy of the diary in a totally unrelated comment thread with no explanation? Would you be so kind as to answer that?

              •  Let's define "okay" here. (7+ / 0-)

                Would I like that it happened? Of course not.

                But in this hypothetical, I was the one who clicked "Publish" in the first place. I made the choice to publish it, knowing full well that when I clicked that button, I was taking an action that I might not be able to fully undo.

                You're not the only one who's posted something to the internet and almost immediately—maybe even before clicking "Submit"—thought "oh shit, I shouldn't have done that."

                Hell, I've lost count of the number of times that I knew when I was clicking the preview button that I was going to regret clicking "Submit." When I'm thinking clearly about my actions, that knowledge usually leads me to click "Cancel." Occasionally, when I'm not thinking clearly or I'm in one of those "what the hell" moods, I click "Submit"—and my prediction of regret has tended, more often than not, to be vindicated.

                So, would I be "okay" with someone throwing a comment or post back in my face that I regretted writing? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that I'd consider it a grave violation of the rules, a matter of etiquette worth starting a meta pie-fight over. I'd kick myself for publishing the damn thing in the first place and take it as a lesson learned, to do a little more reflection before clicking "Publish" next time.

                As an aside, I might add that the first rule of holes is "stop digging"—and with this post, I daresay you've drawn a hundred times as many eyeballs to the post you wish you could delete from the world, than you would have if you had chosen to just let it go. Somehow, I doubt that was your intended purpose in writing this.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:11:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you for finally answering. The (0+ / 0-)

                  hypotheticals are totally irrelevant as it related to this diary.  I'm not sure if you read it, or read the poll question.

                  •  You created the hypothetical. (3+ / 0-)

                    I quote your own comment, the very comment to which I was replying:

                    If you publish a diary and within minutes unpublish it or delete it, would you be okay if somebody posted a link to a cached copy of the diary in a totally unrelated comment thread with no explanation?
                    That did not happen to me. Therefore, if I am the "you" to which you refer in that comment—which I can only assume I am, since your comment was a reply to me—it is a hypothetical situation.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:30:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is getting truly bizarre by now. That (0+ / 0-)

                      situation happened exactly as I describe it.  Since you seemed not to understand the point, I just posited the question to you personally; how would you feel if that was done to you?

                      Either way, the situation, and this diary are not based on semantics, what-ifs, or hypotheticals.

                      Instead of posting long-winded stuff about all kinds of unrelated what-ifs, you could just have answered the question asked in this diary?

                      •  You missed my point, yet again. (5+ / 0-)
                        Since you seemed not to understand the point, I just posited the question to you personally; how would you feel if that was done to you?
                        But it has not been done to me.

                        Since I have never personally experienced that, I can only hypothesize about how I would feel about it and what lessons I might learn from it—a question I did, in fact, answer upthread, despite your insistence that I have not answered it.* Therefore, for me, it is a hypothetical situation.

                        * The fact that my answer was not the moral outrage you seemed to desire does not mean I failed to answer the question; if you find my answer insufficient as a response to the question, please do feel free to point out exactly how, preferably with blockquotes.

                        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                        by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:51:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry - once you publish (5+ / 0-)

            you allow it to be read and saved by everyone in the world with an internet connection.

            If that is what you mean by an "unpublished" diary.  One that has been published and then "unpublished".  The diarist has not made that clear.

            Once a diary has been published, there really is no going back.

        •  This statement is not nuanced enough. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fisheye, grover, mrkvica
          Whatever the reasons, unless the diary is an utter embarassment to the poster and or the site, I think deletion is disprespectful to the community.


          __________________
          "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
                  -- Joshua, aka WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) automated nuclear-launch super-computer. "War Games," 1983.

          by Pluto on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:04:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But it's not common (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch, fcvaguy, kurt

        practice.

        Deleting published diaries shouldn't be common practice either.

    •  That sounds like (6+ / 0-)

      a way to intimidate someone, particularly how you put it here. That's exceptionally uncool, to put it politely.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:30:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Intimidating how? (19+ / 0-)

        It's pretty solid advice in a number of arenas. Not just the publishing of diaries on DKos. Think twice before posting, also before hitting send on the e-mail, also before opening mouth. Even applied in the olden days in thinking twice before dropping the letter in the mailbox. And it's a classic concept that goes way way back.

        The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
          Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
         Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
          Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's like she's the Thinking Police (7+ / 0-)

        trying to make us all think before posting something, rather than posting something and then complaining that we can't take it back!

        This is what a police state looks like!

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, mrkvica

          Deleting and unpublishing IS being "able to take it back" -- from a state of being published to its intended audience -- this website.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:05:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's not being "able to take it back." (11+ / 0-)

            "Deleting and unpublishing content" does not mean "taking it back"; it only means that anyone who tries to load the content from the server in the future will not be able to do so.

            Like any action taken by humans, it is subject to the laws of the space-time continuum; it cannot affect actions taken in the past.

            The person who originally published the content does not have the ability to go around to every single computer that loaded and cached/saved the content before it was deleted/unpublished, and delete it from the computer's memory.

            Once someone clicks the button to publish something to a public webpage, they no longer have the power to completely delete it from the world. That's a basic fact.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:37:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It might mean "WISHING I could take it back" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fcvaguy, ballerina X, kurt

              but that, imo, means that an apology is in order from the poster, not that we all have to believe it was never said.

              "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

              by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:40:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm clear on the "physics" of it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador

              It's the ethics and/or etiquette of, in a sense, republishing the content on this site, after it was intentionally removed by the diarist, against his/her wishes, that I'm talking about.

              Apparently many feel it's okay to seek out a diary of someone they don't like, that's been unpublished for any number of reasons, even with no deceptive intent on the part of the diarist, and use a cached link of the diary to blindside the diarist in an unrelated thread.

              Maybe there ought to be a reminder that, once published, and even if removed from the site within 15 minutes of originally posting, a person is allowed to beat you over the head with it, on site,  in the future.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:19:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, maybe the topics of ethics and etiquette (0+ / 0-)

                should be discussed here more often.

              •  Ethics and Etiquette (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too, 6412093, kurt, mskitty, Wee Mama
                It's the ethics and/or etiquette of, in a sense, republishing the content on this site, after it was intentionally removed by the diarist, against his/her wishes, that I'm talking about.
                We do that to people all the friggin' time here. Think about the last time you saw a post about a Republican posting something offensive on Twitter or Facebook... if the person posting here is smart, they make sure to put up a screen capture, in case the Republican in question tries to delete the post to cover their tracks.

                So what is it that makes that practice acceptable, while republishing material that Mr. Pensador made public and then tried to remove is not acceptable? Both cases involve the republishing of content against the wishes of the original writer, who intentionally removed it from the internet.

                The only difference is that Mr. Pensador published the material he regretted publishing and tried to remove to this site, which he posts on regularly, rather than publishing it elsewhere.

                I can see how there might be an etiquette issue involved with that, given that every site community has its own standards of etiquette.

                But I'm having a really difficult time seeing how the fact that he published and then tried to remove it here rather than somewhere else makes any kind of difference ethically. It seems to me that from an ethical standpoint, it's an either/or choice—either one is obligated to respect all authors' wishes in not republishing material they regret posting and want to remove, or one isn't obligated to respect authors' wishes at all and once they've made something public, they've made it fair game.

                So if this is really just another discussion about site etiquette, then this seems to me like a massive overreaction on Mr. Pensador's part. It seems to me that this fuss over etiquette couldn't but become another ridiculous piefight where Mr. Pensador's supporters and detractors make an Olympic sport out of which side has violated what they view as site etiquette more than the other side.

                Finally, given the physics of the situation, it seems to me that the best solution for everyone going forward is to give a bit more consideration to the permanence of materials posted to the internet—particularly for those who know that they are often inclined to come back later, regret what they wrote, and attempt to remove it.

                The best way to ensure that one will never be "beat[en] over the head" with content they regret is to never publish content they'll regret in the first place.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:42:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You got quiet a few things wrong. First, I didn't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead

                  "attempt" to unpublish the diary in question, I actually did using the available feature. Second there is nothing wrong with the content of the diary, but even so, it seems to me I owe no explanation to anyone as to why I decided to unpublish it. Third, the ethical question applies, as noted by DeadHead... Is it okay to post a cached link to an unpublish or deleted diary in a totalky unrelated comment thread?

                  What is your answer to that? That is the topic of this diary.

                  •  I think you missed my point. (4+ / 0-)
                    First, I didn't "attempt" to unpublish the diary in question, I actually did using the available feature.
                    If you're going to engage in this level of semantic nitpicking, please do actually read what I wrote first—because I didn't make any specification about your trying to remove the material just from this site. I wrote that you attempted to remove the material, period. You may have successfully unpublished it from this site so that this site would no longer serve said material, but you were unsuccessful in removing it from the various other services that cache and store content posted to the internet. Ergo, it was an attempt.
                    Second there is nothing wrong with the content of the diary, but even so, it seems to me I owe no explanation to anyone as to why I decided to unpublish it.
                    Of course not. When did I imply that you owed some kind of explanation as to your decision? The material this site serves up under your account is something the site's administrators have granted you control over; you're free to publish and unpublish material to your account here to your heart's content.

                    But that does not give you the right to demand that if you decide to remove material you've made available to the public, everyone who may have viewed, cached, or saved that material while it was public also delete their copy of that material. You gave up the right to completely control that material when you clicked "Publish."

                    Third, the ethical question applies, as noted by DeadHead... Is it okay to post a cached link to an unpublish or deleted diary in a totalky unrelated comment thread?
                    Sure, it applies—but if it's an ethical question, it's a question with universal application. It can't be specific to material posted on this site. So if this is a question of ethics, then the question becomes whether it is ever ethical to cache and republish material from an author who has deleted the original version of that material and made it clear that he or she does not want said material republished.

                    You could certainly come down on the side that says that it's never ethical to do so—but then, you would be accepting that you too would be bound by this ethical rule. If one of your own posts contained quotations or statements by someone that they later expressed regret over and tried to remove, you would be ethically bound to remove those quotations or statements from your posts.

                    But if your question is just about whether it's acceptable on this site, then you've left the realm of ethics and entered the realm of etiquette.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:27:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would argue that the one using semantic games (0+ / 0-)

                      is you... Let me prove it:

                      But that does not give you the right to demand that if you decide to remove material you've made available to the public, everyone who may have viewed, cached, or saved that material while it was public also delete their copy of that material. You gave up the right to completely control that material when you clicked "Publish."
                      That is not only untrue and a total mischaracterization, but bizarrely so.

                      Nowhere am I demanding that people delete copies of the "material."

                      Again, my only question is: If a user publishes a diary, and then within minutes decides to unpublish it or delete it, and somehow another user gets a cached copy of the diary and then posts a link to it in a totally unrelated comment thread without any explanation, if that shows good faith, manners, and etiquette, not to mention following site guidelines?

                      So I call your "argument' a straw man, and like all such constructions, the builder usually goes on to attack it.  But the bizarre thing is that it is so transparent, that I don't know why you attempt it.

                      The rest of your post is more of the same... And yes, I read it.  Either way, I'm getting off the circular logical argument wheel now...

                      •  Okay, fair enough. (4+ / 0-)
                        That is not only untrue and a total mischaracterization, but bizarrely so.

                        Nowhere am I demanding that people delete copies of the "material."

                        Okay, I'll grant that point. You're not demanding that people delete copies of that post. You're just demanding that everyone on this site pretend that you never wrote and published it, such that any other copies or caches of the post that are still out there may as well be deleted.

                        I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes, but it is a distinction.

                        If a user publishes a diary, and then within minutes decides to unpublish it or delete it, and somehow another user gets a cached copy of the diary and then posts a link to it in a totally unrelated comment thread without any explanation, if that shows good faith, manners, and etiquette, not to mention following site guidelines?
                        That depends on the situation and the context. In this case, I think I'd agree that reposting said material doesn't "show good faith, manners, and etiquette"—but I don't think it was a particularly egregious offense either, and certainly nothing worth starting a meta pie-fight over.

                        I think it falls into the category of the things people on this site do to intentionally needle one another from time to time, a category of actions that also includes things like choosing words and phrases that one knows are going to irritate, annoy, or piss off those who disagree with them, or writing intentionally vague accusations about other site users that can color others' opinions of those users while still maintaining plausible deniability that one ever made explicit accusations in the first place. I don't think you can maintain with a straight face that you're innocent of those actions.

                        In all of those cases, there are two sets of choices being made. The first choice is made by the person who initially posts the material he or she knows is going to needle other users, to post the material rather than choosing words, phrases, or content that would be less likely to offend others and start pie-fights. The second choice is made by the person who chooses to allow the initial poster to manipulate them, responding in kind and reacting emotionally rather than choosing to rise above the petty emotional manipulations of others.

                        Let me explain this with another metaphor, one that directly implicates etiquette. Suppose, in a few weeks, you find yourself at Thanksgiving dinner with members of your extended family whom you know to be Tea Party members, who know you to be strongly left-wing. If your Tea Party uncle, in the course of Thanksgiving dinner conversation, makes some veiled reference to your left-wing views that you find offensive, that would definitely be a breach of etiquette, no?

                        But it would be no less a breach of etiquette—and, most would agree, a reaction that increases rather than defuses the drama of the situation and the likelihood of a family rupture—if, as a result of said veiled reference, you stand up from the table, throw your napkin and fork down on your plate, and start loudly arguing with him. If you allow the veiled reference to pass over you instead, people will have a lower opinion of your Tea Party uncle, and think more of you for not letting it get to you.

                        That seems to me to be an analogy for what's happening here.

                        Moreover, I would be remiss if I failed to continue to mention that you could have prevented the whole kerfluffle by not publishing the now-deleted post in the first place. By publishing it, you forfeited the right to completely control its distribution and continued existence.

                        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                        by JamesGG on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:11:06 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, we do that all the time here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  to Republicans who aren't posting on Daily Kos.

                  That's to be expected on a Democratic blog.

                  Doing it to fellow kossacks, however, is what I find problematic.

                  The only legitimate reason I can see for doing it would be to specifically refute a diarist who was being dishonest about either having posted the diary in the first place, or trying to pull some other kind of "fast one" over on the community.

                  That did not occur in this instance. The link was posted in an unrelated diary for no apparent reason other than to antagonize the diarist, by a person who has long given the impression he considers the diarist to be somewhat of a nuisance.

                  When I discovered who it was, I wasn't surprised in the least.

                  It's especially noteworthy to me because I saw it happen on one or two other occasions to this same diarist.

                  So I understand why this latest occurrence caused Ray to respond as he did.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:52:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, "problematic," sure. (3+ / 0-)
                    Doing it to fellow kossacks, however, is what I find problematic.
                    Was it a breach of site etiquette, in being an intentional attempt to needle Mr. Pensador? I find it hard to dispute that.

                    However, as I write above, it isn't alone in the category of "dickish things people do to needle each other around here," sharing that category with other actions such as choosing words and phrases that one knows are going to irritate, annoy, or piss off those who disagree with them, or writing intentionally vague accusations about other site users that can color others' opinions of those users while still maintaining plausible deniability that one ever made explicit accusations in the first place.

                    If you accept my categorization—and I'm not saying you have to—then it's hard to argue that Mr. Pensador hasn't given as good as he's gotten in this regard. In terms of site etiquette, I find him a rather unsympathetic defendant.

                    However, I don't think it's possible to suggest that this particular instance in which someone did not respect Mr. Pensador's desire to delete that post was a breach of ethics, while instances in which we do not respect the desires of other authors to delete their own work on other sites are not similarly so, without some kind of additional ethical framework.

                    That framework would need to be a larger set of criteria with universal aspirations that delineates some kind of boundary between authors whose wishes we do have to respect, and authors whose wishes we don't. Perhaps that boundary could be related to the offensiveness of the content itself, or the likelihood that said content would change people's opinion about the author, or a larger pattern of good faith by the author.

                    But absent that boundary—a boundary which, I remind you, cannot be site-specific and must have universal intent—there's no basis for saying that posting cached versions of Mr. Pensador's deleted diaries crosses an ethical line, while posting screencaps of deleted offensive tweets by right-wingers does not.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:28:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  No it's not (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i dunno, Hey338Too, fcvaguy, 6412093, kurt

            once anything has been on the internet, it's almost impossible to kill.

            You keep it on your own hard drive, and if you have a lot of technical skill, you might be able to erase it, but it's not easy.

            With pen and paper, fire will do the trick most of the time.

            •  I understand that (0+ / 0-)

              It's common knowledge.

              I've searched out cached copies of diaries before.

              My focus is on using the link to a cached copy of diary a diarist has unpublished, for any number of reasons, in an unrelated diary, just to be a dick.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:47:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  There's a casino, I think in Lake Co., ca (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    called Cache Creek and they pronounce it cash.

    He who would trade liberty for security deserves great customer service.

    by Publius2008 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:24:11 PM PST

  •  You can't "unpublish" a diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catesby, Hey338Too, kurt

    Or anything else that's been published, for that matter.

    What has been said, cannot be unsaid.

    Is it unfair for someone to bring up what you published once?  No, but maybe they should accept your apology, explanation or whatnot.  Have you tried that?

    "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

    by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:26:55 PM PST

    •  So the "unpublish" and "delete" features (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      are just illusions, right?

      In my case, I'm not really concerned about the content of my diaries (since I try to be careful when I write); it's jut the principle, the behavior which I find kind of weird.

      •  It's not weird at all. (5+ / 0-)

        Why would it be weird for someone to ask you about something you published?

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:35:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  You know, Ray, since you've asked our opinion (6+ / 0-)

            on a subject you raised, you should be polite enough to at least make a pretense of giving a shit about the answers.
            Given that you aren't, feel free to take your meta and shove it where the diaries aren't published.

            "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

            by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:49:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're the one making stupid comments. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, Dianna

              Perhaps you should go seek an "opinion" from someone who thinks wasting time giving one to you is a good idea.

              P.S.: Argle-bargle




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:15:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, we can see why Ray published THIS diary. (5+ / 0-)

                He wasn't asking for opinions. He was just setting up a chance for his fan base to be dicks.

                It's marvelous that you and Ray have found a function, but could you two just get on with it, without the dishonesty of pretending to have an honest meta question? Because even being a dick can use a more direct, concise approach.

                "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

                by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:27:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I figured your response would (0+ / 0-)

                  resort to making a "fan" type of connection between the diarist and myself.

                  Actually, I think he most likely wanted opinions from people who don't make a point of being dicks in his diaries on a regular basis.

                  Like you do.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:05:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Heh. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Woodrow Stool

                    Paragraph 1: denounce my remark about "fans".

                    Paragraph 2: state that Ray most likely only wanted comments from his fans.

                    I can't even feel sorry for you; I know I should consider you a pathetic sycophant, but you're such a tool I just can't.

                    "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

                    by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:24:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for the insults (0+ / 0-)

                      About what I expect from you.

                      No, not everyone who offers an opinion on the topic of this diary need agree with Ray's other diaries and/or worldview.

                      Recidivistic dicks usually don't have opinions worthy of consideration.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:45:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It's pretty amusing to see this tactic used with (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DeadHead

                      such brazenness and bluntness... So now the attempt at maligning my character escalate to brutal and unwarranted personal attacks on people who agree with me, and all this is being done with total impunity, and with increased hostility.

                      As I said, this environment is particularly challenging, and I've seen all kinds.

      •  Not illusions, but not plenary. (8+ / 0-)
        So the "unpublish" and "delete" features are just illusions, right?
        No, they are commands to the Daily Kos server about what to do with that post's content in the future.

        Let's break this down with another metaphor. Let's say I write a text file on my computer and save it to my hard drive. I then email the file to you as an attachment. After emailing it to you, I delete the file from my computer's hard drive.

        Does that mean that the text file has ceased to exist? Of course not. Because I have emailed it to you, the copy of the file that lives on your email server continues to exist regardless of what happens to my local copy of the file.

        Does the fact that the file continues to exist mean that the "Delete" command on my computer is "just an illusion"? No, because it's not a "delete from every single computer on the planet everywhere" command; rather, it's a specific command to a specific machine.

        Similarly, once you publish something to the public internet, you have, in essence, emailed it to the whole world. Those who load that content while it was publicly available have the ability to do whatever they want with it—save it, cache it, print it out and frame it, whatever.

        You can delete that content from the server later on so that the server doesn't send the content to those who ask for it in the future, but that does not affect the content that others have already loaded. But that does not mean that the "Delete" and "Unpublish" features are "just an illusion"—it means that, like my command to delete the text file from my hard drive, they are specific commands to a specific machine. They cannot affect content stored or saved on other machines.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:46:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  everything on the internet is there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        forever.

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- LutherCEO

        by terrypinder on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:03:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Holy shit. Maximum density has been achieved. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, Dianna

      Wow.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:09:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just take a crap you're particularly proud of? (0+ / 0-)

        Or are you just doing the usual and responding to everything I post, without content, because you think that's a way to be a dick without breaking the rules?

        Really, Ray pretended to be asking a question, and you STILL act as if you need to be his yappy little guard dog.  

        "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

        by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:35:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I had to explain that to my teenager (0+ / 0-)

      many times.

  •  That sounds like it was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, Dianna

    fortuitous timing, to say the least, in terms of posting a 'cached diary" that's been unpublished. What I mean is "timing on the part of Google" or whatever crawler has picked it up so quickly. Are you able to tell where it's been cached? Not that it necessarily matters all that much, but I'm real curious about the timing (which I wouldn't be if it only happened once, but twice?).

    Without having more info (and I know you're kind of limited on something like this), IMO, either your stalker is really stalkerish and just got lucky with timing or somebody, somewhere, is tapping your PC in real-time.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:29:09 PM PST

  •  I'd say to link to (14+ / 0-)

    a deleted diary falls afoul of a couple of Kos' rules. Namely,do not drag disagreements from thread to thread and DBAD.
    I also think it is a petty and stupid behaviour,but that is just my opinion.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:30:20 PM PST

  •  how can anyone other than an admin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, grover

    access an unpublished diary?

    as to the question of deleted and cached, i can see arguments for and against, so i'll go with whatever the admins say.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:33:31 PM PST

    •  Uh oh. (5+ / 0-)

      I guess I better find another place to stash my online porn collection.


      __________________
      "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
              -- Joshua, aka WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) automated nuclear-launch super-computer. "War Games," 1983.

      by Pluto on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:14:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you say unpublished diary? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador
      but on a few occasions I've written a diary, sometimes spending a couple of hours writing it, and after publishing it and re-reading it I realized that I don't like the way it came out, and I go ahead and unpublish it, or delete it.  Out of the almost 500 diaries I've written I may have done that maybe 6 or 7 times (if my memory serves me right).
      •  did you read (0+ / 0-)

        the title?

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:25:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but as we all know, titles aren't always (0+ / 0-)

          accurate.  And are their requirements as to how many characters you can use in a title?

          More precisely the title should have read:

          Is posting cached links to a published and then unpublished or published and then deleted diaries acceptable behavior at Daily Kos?

          So I guess you didn't read the diary.

          but on a few occasions I've written a diary, sometimes spending a couple of hours writing it, and after publishing it and re-reading it I realized that I don't like the way it came out, and I go ahead and unpublish it, or delete it.  Out of the almost 500 diaries I've written I may have done that maybe 6 or 7 times (if my memory serves me right).
  •  Is this a recent incident? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Ray Pensador, angel d, lotlizard

    I remember someone doing something similar to you awhile back, as in, at least a month or so ago.

    I took issue with it then, and I would take issue with it now.

    You're the only person I've seen this happen to, personally.

    I know others get questioned about why they've deleted diaries, and people do get perturbed when they are unexpectedly cut-off from further commenting in a diary due to it being deleted/unpublished, which I can understand.

    However, going so far as to seek out the cached copy of the diary to throw back in the diarist's face is, imo, unacceptable, and unnecessarily antagonizing.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:33:40 PM PST

  •  Piffle. Ray, you know that once something's out (9+ / 0-)

    on the internet, it's fair game. Since I check to see what you've published, I saw the Tip Jar earlier today, and checked myself to see what it was you'd published and deleted. Found it the first try.

    After wondering why you'd hit Publish in the first place, I looked to see if it had been up long enough for any comments, and came across Bob's question.

    I can pretty much guarantee that if you'd ignored his comment, and not written this diary, nobody else would have bothered to go looking except maybe your greatest fans - it was in a dead thread, and under normal circumstances nobody except you would have seen it anyway. I assume that was the point of Bob's doing it that way. Now, of course, it's very much fair game.

    There are Cancel buttons all along the road for just about any action you can take on Daily Kos. That you didn't hit any of them until after publication - that makes it your problem, not somebody else's.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:42:07 PM PST

    •  Your concern is noted. I'm not really worried (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angel d, DeadHead, Dianna

      about the content of the diary itself, in any way.  I'm calling attention to the behavior, to the action of linking cached copies of unpublished/deleted diaries and posting them in unrelated threads.

      Do you have an opinion on that specific action?  Do you approve?  I'm just curious.

      As to myself, I can't imagine ever doing something like that.

      •  If I ever find a cached copy of an unpublished (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mskitty

        diary, I will know that the NSA has managed to hack into the DKos servers and wants everybody to know about it.

        What about "Now, of course, it's very much fair game." doesn't sound like an opinion to you?

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:04:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it okay to post cached links of unpublished or (0+ / 0-)

          deleted diaries to unrelated comments threads, without even elucidating on why it was done?

          I'm just trying to get you to answer that simple question, if you would.

          •  hard to deal in hypotheticals (0+ / 0-)

            People post links all the time without much comment that they think are self-explanatory.

          •  I did. Twice. I think it was no big deal, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too

            as it was done, and still wouldn't be, except that you're sure trying your best to make it one. Is that a simple enough restatement of what I originally said?

            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

            by serendipityisabitch on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:15:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay, so you've done it twice, posted links (0+ / 0-)

              to cached copies of unpublished or deleted diaries in unrelated comment threads and you think that's okay... And by they way, it's so cool, no big deal, that why would anybody make something of it?  Right?

              Again, just checking...

              •  Okay. Let me reply quite precisely to your (5+ / 0-)

                comment. I posted cached links to two of your deleted diaries, here, in a diary to which they were relevant. You never disputed the relevance, and never replied to my comment. I believe you categorized my posting as "creepy" farther down the thread, to DeadHead.

                Both diaries had been up on Daily Kos for some time before they had been deleted, both included spirited debate about their topics, and both were on point to my comment.

                This diary is about something very different, or it supposedly was. Since you specifically brought up my comment as a related example to the one you're trying to make a big deal of here, with the implication that my comment was also unethical and contrary to the rules of DKos, I feel free to state my full, not so civil opinion of this diary and your subsequent comments. This is bullshit.

                At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                by serendipityisabitch on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:14:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, so the bullshit aside, do you think it is (0+ / 0-)

                  kosher, acceptable, just dandy, to link cached copies of deleted/unpublished diaries in totally unrelated comment threads?

                  Also, as I've asked you so many times before, why do you have so much interest in my diaries?  I know the thing about "we can visit any diary we want and post as many antagonistic posts we want and this is an ope forum," and all that.

                  Again, it's just commons sense to me... I would never visit or comment in your diaries, but you keep showing up in mine posting what I consider to be maligning posts, trying to attack my character.  Why the interest?

                  If you don't like my style, why not move on to other diaries?

                  •  Ah, but you have visited and commented in at (8+ / 0-)

                    least one of my diaries. How many others you have visited, I cannot, of course, say for certain. On a much higher level, percentage-wise of course, than I have been in yours.

                    You fascinate me. You write at a level of internal paradox which is substantially higher than any other diarist I have found here, your level of definitional variance to the common norm is incredible, and your ability to misconstrue common phrases is, well, startling.

                    More to the point, some incredibly lucid and coherent replies are made about the topics you choose to discuss. That they are generally in disagreement with your perspective is an interesting phenomena. I believe I have learned more things about more varied topics just reading the commentary in your diaries than I have in any other venue on Daily Kos. How could I not be interested?

                    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                    by serendipityisabitch on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:09:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This comment it awesome! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      serendipityisabitch

                      It should be cashed on all servers everywhere!

                      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                      by Hey338Too on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:36:01 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Interesting. Finally, I visited your profile out (0+ / 0-)

                      of curiosity and I see you've been here since 2008, but the metrics are kind of weird.  I'm starting to understand a few things now.

                      One of them is that as I've been advised by a few people before, I don't think is worth it for me to engage in discussions with you.

                      You say I fascinate you, and that may explain the obsession.  I'll leave it at that from now on; that's the explanation.

                      •  Uh, Ray (3+ / 0-)

                        Just what are you trying to imply with this?

                        * [new]  Interesting. Finally, I visited your profile out (0+ / 0-)

                        of curiosity and I see you've been here since 2008, but the metrics are kind of weird.  I'm starting to understand a few things now.

                        What metrics are weird?, I'm sure we'd all like to know.

                        What exactly are you starting to understand?

                        Ron Reagan: "Sarah Palin's constituency are people who wear red rubber noses and bells on their shoes."

                        by AnnetteK on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:17:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, the intrigue! It's truly pathetic. In other (0+ / 0-)

                          words, "Please give 'us' something to go on..."

                        •  This is just Ray being Ray, I think. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AnnetteK, Hey338Too, HudsonValleyMark

                          I tend to get this kind of ham-handed innuendo from him whenever he doesn't seem to have a coherent argument to make and has run out of other diversions. It's safer than insult, in any case (which blows my previous theory that he doesn't really understand what an insult is).

                          Let it go, let it pass... There will be new marvels to be seen in the next diary which will far outshine any mere quibbles which may be raised in this one.

                          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                          by serendipityisabitch on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:36:31 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Just to be clear, dear Ray, I had ANSWERED you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama

                twice already. Nobody but you, in the midst of losing an argument and trying to turn the subject to something more comfortable, would have made that interpretation. I stand by my original answer here, but wanted to correct this minor misinterpretation.

                At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                by serendipityisabitch on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:21:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Which was it? (0+ / 0-)

            Unpublished or deleted links?  You said it only happened twice, so that should be easy to answer.

      •  It's absolutely fair game (3+ / 0-)

        if it can be used to make a valid point in a dispute.

        The action itself is neither good nor bad.  It can be either depending on the circumstances.

        What you are asking if it is acceptable if the diarist doesn't like it.

        Unfortunately, not only does the fact that the "internet never forgets" rule, but the fact that you believe anyone should be able to erase any part of their own past is laughable.

        Should Ron Paul have been able to 'delete' his publications?  Apparently his son wants to 'delete' his book right about now.

        Now you may not like it, but unfortunately the world is not organized to your liking.

        Now a link to an unpublished diary is a matter of site management.  They should be able to make sure that unpublished diaries are not crawled.  If they are, then you need to take that up with them, because I do agree that those should be private until you choose to publish.

        Do you have evidence of that?

  •  What about (10+ / 0-)

    You publish a diary.

    Some makes another diary (or an article somewhere else) using quotes from your diary (via cut and paste and blockquoting, say, with an appropriate cite).

    Then you go and delete your diary.  Is the person obligated to deal with this fact in that person's essay/diary ?

    I think accessing a cached copy (which implies that the person knew you'd deleted it) is pretty nasty, but it's not clear to me that it is unethical.  You did, after all, put it out there for the world to see.

  •  This diary and comments is Top Comment worthy. (0+ / 0-)

    For some, the Internet is a reflecting pool.

  •  I can't figure out why someone would (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, DeadHead, Ray Pensador

    link to a cached version of an extremely short-lived, unpublished/deleted diary in an unrelated thread, for no easily ascertainable reason

    UNLESS ...

    they just wanted to bust your nuts.

    My guess is that Bob was just yanking your chain to amuse himself.

    Good guess Bob?

    Or did you have a better reason for doing that?

    •  But Ray says he's not concerned about content. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      You seem to imply that repeating the content is busting Ray's nuts.

      Is Ray being disingenuous?  Is it really that he's embarrassed by being quoted accurately?

      "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

      by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:38:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did not mean to imply that at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        in fact, what I implied is what I wrote ... that linking to the cached version of a diary that Ray obviously meant to delete, in an unrelated thread, is busting his nuts.

        •  Yeah, I think that must be bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          6412093

          I don't think Ray's balls can be busted unless he's ashamed of the content, because it was stupid or contradictory.  Certainly not to the point of posting a disingenuous diary where he pretends to be asking about community mores, rejects opinions when given and then  his fan base then "snickers" at the opinions.  

          No, I think that Ray posted something he regrets, and now wants some sort of rule that makes everyone pretend it didn't happen.  Which people would probably be happy to do, if Ray weren't a passive aggressive who tees up diaries for people like deadhead and you to be rude in.

          "One faction of one party in one House of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."

          by Inland on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:35:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  just say balls. busting balls... (0+ / 0-)

          see it just sounds better.

          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

          by jbou on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:27:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  At least trying to, desperately. Trying. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  I thought the B word (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            was off limits on this forum.

            •  if the B word is an actual thing... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              angel d

              I feel sad for the people who created it.

              I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

              by jbou on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:37:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's only off limit for some people. n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              angel d
            •  No problem with "balls" when you are referring to (3+ / 0-)

              someone's actual testicles (or metaphoric ones) - the comment above was talking about Ray in particular. You may be thinking of the opposition some have to using "balls" as a metaphor for courage. That is because that usage implies that women lack courage.

              Other idiomatic uses of "balls" that would be fine are "Balls!" as an expletive of dismissal or "all balled up" for a confused situation (not sure about the origin of that one), or "have by the balls" for putting someone in a tight spot.



              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:03:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excellent! so we can discuss (0+ / 0-)

                Ray's balls without fear of reprisal.

              •  It's kind of amusing to see the almost desperate (0+ / 0-)

                degeneration into crassness by the fab-six.  It is almost as if we're witnessing some kind of implosion of rage, or something.

              •  I sent this to admin, for what is worth: (0+ / 0-)
                Highly Offensive Invective About Testicles

                Dear Admin,

                At this point I'm a little concerned about the fairness of moderation at Daily Kos since I have not received answers to reports of egregious violation of site rules, which I've only reported three or four times (if I'm not mistaken).

                I'd like to think that site guidelines are to be applied to everybody equally, without bias or prejudice...

                Either way, I'm writing to report what I think can be considered a gross violation of site rules, in that a couple of users have engaged in highly personal insults where very crass allusions to  "balls" (as in testicles) are used.

                I'm calling attention to this post in particular:

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

                ""No problem with "balls" when you are referring to someone's actual testicles (or metaphoric ones) - the comment above was talking about Ray in particular. You may be thinking of the opposition some have to using "balls" as a metaphor for courage. That is because that usage implies that women lack courage.

                Other idiomatic uses of "balls" that would be fine are "Balls!" as an expletive of dismissal or "all balled up" for a confused situation (not sure about the origin of that one), or "have by the balls" for putting someone in a tight spot."

                Again, I find this highly offensive.  I do hope appropriate action is taken... If this report is also ignored, I'm afraid it will show some type of double standard when it comes to the enforcement of site rules (especially in these kind of gross violations), something which is not good for Daily Kos' reputation, IMHO.

                Respectfully,

                Ray Pensador

                •  Ray, I said nothing about the comment directed at (5+ / 0-)

                  you. I was responding to the comment that said that they thought the word "balls" was per se off limits. My comment was explaining to them that using "balls"' as a metaphor for courage was offensive to many as misogyny, but that other metaphors using "balls" had not (so far as I know) come under any particular restraint.

                  I did not endorse the comment directed toward you. I would not personally be likely to use any of the idioms I discussed, but they fall within the quite broad spectrum of language here.

                  I really find your note funny.



                  Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                  by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:08:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So referring to balls as in "courage" is a no-no (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheMomCat

                    but referring to busting balls as in the busting of testicles, that's just dandy because, well, one is misogynistic, and the other is being used as some kind of insult alluding to actual, real balls?  And furthermore, the fact that it refers to someone's "actual testicles," or "metaphoric ones" is just fine, in your view.

                    Now, as you know, there are similar metaphors when it comes to women... The word in question can be used as an insult to call somebody a coward, or it could actually be used as an actual body part of a women.

                    Speaking of courage, let's see if you can have the intellectual fortitude to back up your position...

                    Do you think it would be appropriate for somebody to make an allusion to a female sexual organ as part of an argument or discussion in this forum?

                    •  It is hard to believe that I need to spell this (4+ / 0-)

                      out for you, but apparently I do.

                      "She's really got balls!"
                      "He needs to get some balls!"

                      both imply that balls=courage. By that equation, they also implicitly state that women don't have courage.

                      Expressions like "bust his balls" express animosity towards someone, because the testicles are very fragile. I have never seen the expression used about a woman, but the metaphorical sense would transfer.

                      Using "bust X's balls" is a vivid but very crude way to express animosity; it derives from the real fragility of the testicles.

                      Using "X has balls" for courage uses a false equivalence, one that reflects centuries, millenia of misogyny.

                      To answer your question explicitly:

                      Do you think it would be appropriate for somebody to make an allusion to a female sexual organ as part of an argument or discussion in this forum?
                      Only if the discussion involved childbirth, rape or some other process that takes place there.



                      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                      by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 05:08:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Interesting. So by hiding behind the shield of (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheMomCat

                        political correctness when it comes to misogyny, you feel free to offend at will and with total impunity by making actual references to my balls, and how it is okay to talk about busting them or not, and make references to balls/testicles being "fragile," and doing all of it claiming that it is you that's showing courage!

                        That is truly amazing!

                        I'm moving on... I thought I just would point out the low-brow crassness of it all when I read your post referring to my testicles; I thought at least I had that right since you were so inclined on making that comment, and have now dug in deeper into even crassness.

                        Again, I'll leave it in the hands of the moderators.

                •  I should add that any call for violence is off (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                  limits, directed anywhere. My comment was responding, as you would know if you went up one comment in the thread, to the idea that the word "balls" itself is off limits.



                  Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                  by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:15:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ray, you're supposed to be the one who's up on all (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama, Hey338Too, Timaeus, CenPhx, AnnetteK

                  admin pronouncements. I believe I heard a statement from Kos once, something to the effect that "we're adults here", and as such, "adult" language is permitted on the site.

                  Especially in meta-comments like the one which has you so upset, in which the working limits of terminology are being explored. The only reason I can imagine that you would make this comprehensive reply to Wee Mama, rather than the original commenters in this thread, is that she is going to be determinedly polite to you, no matter how offensive you become.

                  And you have indeed become offensive. I'm speaking now of the entire thread below, during which you have managed to insult her as a coward, crass, unethical, and a liar. That "one little step" you've been talking about? You just took it, again, against someone who has shown you no malice whatsoever.  Why? Because it was safer than doing it against someone like, say, Inland or jbou who would take strips off your hide for doing it?

                  At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                  by serendipityisabitch on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:24:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  no wonder they ignore you (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch, Timaeus

                  You're about as whiny as they come and you are a hypocrite. You fail to see your own flaws because your ego blinds you. You fail on so many fronts but you continue to soldier on. You're like the Energizer Bunny just banging along stuck up against the wall saying the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

                  You're heading down Troubador lane. Good luck.

                  I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                  by jbou on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:48:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Both, creepy and kind of funny at the same (0+ / 0-)

                    time.  In a way is also kind of flattering, the obsession, the vehemence with which you and the other five or six attack me.  It reeks of desperation.  From now on I'll treat it as someone suggested the other day, just some unimportant ankle-biting.

                    Troubador lane?  You wish.  

                    •  and here comes the victim card (4+ / 0-)

                      It's never you it's always someone else.

                      Classify as you wish I can't control how you perceive me nor do I want to.

                      You are heading down Troubador lane because you share the same problem he had your ego is our of control.

                      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                      by jbou on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:25:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  This comment should be preserved for posterity. (6+ / 0-)

                  That is one of the (unintentionally) funniest comments ever posted at Daily Kos.

                  The headline is an instant, all-time classic:

                           Highly Offensive Invective About Testicles
                  I'm thinking of using that for my sig line.

                  "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos

                  by Bob Johnson on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:43:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about sending it to Top Comments? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wee Mama, Hey338Too, poco

                    That would certainly create the pie fight to end all pie fights, at a minimum, so no, probably not... the mental picture is incredible, though.

                    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                    by serendipityisabitch on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:41:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Need a tissue to wipe away the tears? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama, Hey338Too

                  On the other hand, perhaps a pertinent anecdote from my grandmother will suffice.  

                  She told me to never point fingers at anyone because when I did, there were always 3 fingers pointing back at me.  

                  Try it and look at your hand.  Yup, you'll see 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.

                  Please stop pointing at yourself with 3 times the fingers in the future.

                  There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

                  by Puddytat on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:47:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Talk about first world problems. (13+ / 0-)

    Fuck.

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    by NMDad on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:45:04 PM PST

  •  This sure was fun to read. n/t (6+ / 0-)

    please delete

  •  After digging I can see why you deleted it. (4+ / 0-)

    That being said I don't think it should be done except in extreme circumstances. I don't think its that big of a deal since it was a link and not the diary or portions of it but the practice should be frowned upon.

    Also, too I believe the tip jar still exists in your comment section. I don't know enough about caches to know but it seems like you could google the name to find the cached version so it doesn't necessarily mean he saw it right when it was written to have found it.  

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:47:25 PM PST

  •  couldn't this have been handled (3+ / 0-)

    over at the help desk?

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- LutherCEO

    by terrypinder on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:54:54 PM PST

  •  What is true for diarists is also (11+ / 0-)

    true for commenters.  People may regret their comments for any number of reasons, bu they don't have the ability to do anything about it.

    Once you upload your words to the internet, there really is no going back.

    So think about what you publish more carefully.

    What ticks me off is diarists who publish hogwash, get called on it, then unpublish like it never happened.

  •  As long as it exists in the real world (9+ / 0-)

    (ie Google search or similar) it is fair game for the website in my opinion.

    A user here wrote a diary about Gabby Giffords where he used some bad descriptive language. That post got picked up by the national media and though he later deleted it the post continued to be news. Should we have been made to shut up over that diary once it was deleted?

    What if kos wrote a post saying how he wishes Barack Obama or Glenn Greenwald would just shut the fuck up and then deleted it? Would we all pretend that that never happened?

  •  it exists and you published it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too

    as such it's out there. Now if you want to say 'well I didn't mean such and such that way and to be fair (or whatever) I deleted the diary' I could see that.

    But honestly you've tended to delete the diaries that have espoused some of the more unusual ideas and beliefs you seem to hold. As such I would say it's more dishonest to delete the diaries then to reference them. That said there still needs to be relevance and if all someone does is go around posting links to things you've said well that should be wrong.

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:33:50 PM PST

  •  Sounds like a personal squabble (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

    So no

    You cached it

  •  It's a moot point. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mskitty

    The NSA has a copy of everything you ever typed into a computer, whether you published it or not.

    And God can read your thoughts.

  •  If you decide to publish it, live with it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, kurt

    "Because I am a river to my people."

    by lordcopper on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:58:59 PM PST

  •  In my case (0+ / 0-)

    I felt I had to delete a diary since it may have tipped the union's hand regarding strategy in our fight. Never occurred to me that the great and powerful Google would have a cached copy available... If the thought escaped my notice, I'm pretty sure UPMC would be even more in the dark. Some people behave badly when they can hide behind a username on a keyboard somewhere on the internet, and say things they would never say to your face. Better to ignore the bad behavior than to offer encouragement by playing their game...

  •  I got taken to the cleaners in a pretty savage way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, DeadHead

    for quoting a person's former sig line during an exchange.  One could say, I suppose, that by replacing the old sig line, the former should be considered deleted, but it had been up on the site for a long, long time before that.  I remembered the line clearly, and felt it was a clear indicator of the poster's views, views we were discussing. I was told that bringing it up was a grievous insult, completely beyond the pale.

    I would never do that again, partly because I took such a beating, and partly because it's always a mistake to get bogged down in a meta argument with anyone over their current--or former--writings.  I always regret it, and have vowed it's always better to walk away.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:28:29 PM PST

    •  Let me put it this way... From what I've been able (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      to discern, If I did something like that (posting a link to a cached copy of a deleted diary) in a totally unrelated comment thread I would not be able to write this comment...

      •  No diaries were deleted in my case (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead, Terri, kurt, Wee Mama, Catte Nappe

        The poster had just changed sig lines after many months--or more--of using an old one.  I've changed sig lines perhaps seven or eight times during my six years here.  I don't think he/she thought it was a bad sig line; just found a new one.  I think the outrage was over disagreeing with the person in the first place.  But bringing up those words was the "crime", so to speak.  I would never do it again.  I tend to be like my name--soft spoken.  I've never even had a hide rated comment as far as I know, and I almost never write diaries. I  always amazed at the level of rage people are capable of summoning up when arguing with a complete stranger on the internet.

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:58:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem I'm seeing is that some people seem (0+ / 0-)

          to be able to commit gross violations of site guidelines with total impunity, while others are punished for the slightest "missteps."  That's just my impression.

          •  Name them ... (0+ / 0-)

            This is your chance.  The last comment in the diary.  Name the names - specifically.  You can also list their "gross violations" of site guidelines.

            This issue has been beaten to death - you make accusations about "some people" and then fail to mention who they are and what they do.  Take a breath and write the names and the actions.

            Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

            by Hey338Too on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:47:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He isn't stupid. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador

              Stop trying to bait him into doing something that runs a good chance of getting him pounced on.

              I have my own mental list. I've even done a little data mining on the subject to satisfy my own curiosity, too.

              They exist. One's in this diary right now, being his normal asshole self. Two other "regulars" are here, but showing more restraint.

              No one needs to provide proof of anything to you, because it will not have any impact on the situation either way if they do.

              In other words, you aren't important enough to the outcome of this issue to make persuading you a worthwhile endeavor.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:25:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  *yawn* God-complex much? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too

                "List?"
                Really?
                The leaf must inspire such... watchfulness.

                •  Yawn all you want (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  When people start claiming shit isn't happening that's clearly happening, over the span of several diaries, it becomes necessary to make a mental note of it.

                  That way, next time some joker says, "No! No! It never happened!" you can confidently tell them they're full of shit.

                  I don't like being told I'm trippin' when I know I'm not. Perhaps you do.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:45:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  One of many questions I have never pondered! (0+ / 0-)

    And part of a subset of questions that my overall ideology doesn't provide any guidance about.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:42:06 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site