RE: my earlier Dean flame bait thread

[wndycty]

First of all I want to state that my earlier flame bait thread was a result of my being pushed over the edge in regards to the constant Clark bashing. Those of you who know me, know that I am a long time DU'er who often tries to be the voice of reason. While I am a HUGE Clark supporter, I have gone out of the way to be respectful of other candidates because all of us need to support whomever gets the Democratic nomination.

For those of you who expect me to be above starting a flame bait thread I deeply regret letting you down. However I do not apologize for the thread. I think my resorting to flame bait should be a signal of what has happened here on the DU. What finally pushed me to that point, hell whats pushing others to that point? I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not.

Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

I want to be respectful, I don't want to bash other candidates or their supporters, but what I am supposed to do when my candidate is under constant attack, some of it justified, but most of it reckless flame bait? Going forward I am going to bite my tongue because we need to win in Novemeber 2004. I am not one of these people who is going to threaten to leave or anything, but my faith in my fellow DU'ers to be fair and objective is greatly diminished. Lets challenge, lets debate, lets critically examine the Democratic candidates, but lets be fair! I refer you to my earlier positive thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=366686

I take responsibility for my actions and how they may have harmed the DU, will others?

PS-- For those of you who missed my flame bait thread earlier here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=422605

[KaraokeKarlton]

1. Welcome to the world of Dean supporters

This is the exact same thing Dean supporters deal with every day and have for as long as I've been here. When Dean supporters get defensive just like you are getting now, we've been called all kinds of inappropriate things...even compared to Nazis. Before you make the dumb "koolaid" cracks perhaps you ought to take into consideration that Dean supporters have just gotten so sick of the bashing of their candidate that some get a little defensive. The bashing of Clark isn't coming exclusively from Dean supporters, so it's pretty unfair for you to blame just Dean supporters. It's unfortunate for Clark that he wasn't prepared when he entered the race. He's not a politician, so that's to be expected. I'll also say that if Clark supporters are so offended by Dean's statement today about Clark's Republican leaning past (even while Dean said he likes Clark) you are all going to get a hell of a lot more offended before it's over with. Just look at the crap that's been said about Dean. Most of it is blatantly false, too. Might as well toughen up and start looking for information to challenge any bashes, because they aren't likely to stop...and it's not just Dean supporters doing the bashing. You need to be fair.

[wndycty]

4. Please do not insult me. . .

I have been on the DU a long time. It is these very Dean supporters who are behind the Clark bashing. I am not looking for any sympathy. The Clark bashing does not hurt me, nor does it hurt Clark. Its just a waste of time. I think that its funny that you took the opportunity to use a thread that was started to address the state of discourse here on the DU to bash Clark. Bash away, I would expect nothing less of you.

[Roy]

26. wndycty

For the most part it is not Dean or Clark supporters that start most of these flame bait threads, but disruptors who are here for the sole purpose of disrupting.
The thing that gets me is long time respected DU'ers who come on to these threads trying to turn obvious flame bait threads into reasonable discussion.
I admire the patience of the moderators here for trying to allow this silliness to exhaust itself. But, this patience and lack of discourse yields fewer reasons for people to want to log in here for discussion, news, context, and perspective on the various issues.

I am sure the mods see post of interest to all are flushed off the front pages before anyone can see them, and it should be obvious that this is the intent of repeated useless threads.
These guys have much more patience than I.

[wndycty]

31. You know what the funny thing is?

Given what I have read the last few days I did not think that my thread was not that out of line. Its not something I would have normally posted, but it seemed appropriate given the recent climate here on the DU.

My bad.

[Roy]

53. It doesn't matter...........

whether out of line or not, the point for the interlopers is to distract and disrupt. start folks to attempt to rationally explain stupidity to people who are not listening.
The sad part is that as intelligent and informed as most people here are, the tactics are working beautifully.
They can send whole threads to Mr Boortz and laugh at how they made fools of the liberals. And the liberals are doing an excellent job of helping them.

[KaraokeKarlton]

28. Go find one post where I've bashed Clark

I'll be waiting for either a link or an apology.

Thanks in advance.

[wndycty]

42. You will get neither. . .

. . .I have no reason to give you anything.

[KaraokeKarlton]

44. So you call me a basher of Clark when I haven't ever bashed him

And think you're justified in doing that just because someone else bashed Clark?

That's really mature.

[wndycty]

51. This is a thread about the discourse or DU . . .

. . .and you used it as an opportunity to lash out at Clark. This thread is not about Clark or Dean, its about the DU and what is going on and you used it to criticize Clark.

[KaraokeKarlton]

54. Where did I lash out at Clark?

I actually like him alright and have defended him on numerous occassions. If you honestly think what I posted was any kind of attack on Clark you have a serious comprehension problem.

[wndycty]

58. Here it is. . .

"It's unfortunate for Clark that he wasn't prepared when he entered the race. He's not a politician, so that's to be expected."

But I don't expect you to understand why I took it as a bash. If you notice, in this thread I have not lodged one criticism of Dean. This thread is about the DU not the candidates.

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. Well he wasn't prepared and he isn't a politician

And THAT is why he got attacked here mercilessly the other day. He didn't have his statements prepared so that he could properly deal with those "gotcha" questions the press threw at him to make him look inconsistent. What I posted was no bash, for crying out loud and it's all true.

[wndycty]

86. And you keep missing the point of this thread. . .

. . .its not about any candidates merits, its about the tone of DU. You used this thread to criticize a candidate, you took a thread that was intended for one thing and used it for another.

[bitchkitty]

93. Here, let me explain it for you -

When you tell the truth, it's the truth. It might hurt, but it's still the truth. Instead of getting your panties in a wad over people who point out that Clark is unprepared (he is) or that he was a Republican until very recently (he was), why don't you either ignore the comments, or address them?

[wndycty]

95. Again you miss the point. . .

. . .Criticize Clark if you want, but I am merely pointing out that this thread is not about any candidate. Its about the level of discourse here on DU. Every time someone using this thread to criticize any candidate it proves my point.

[boxster]

20. Oh, please.

You pretty much just did exactly what you're telling other people not to. Had you stopped at "we've had enough of the bashing" instead of bashing Clark "unfortunate for Clark...not politician...to be expected", we could actually take you seriously. But, even after calling the original poster defensive, you chose the same tactics.

Yes, the koolaid crack was dumb. But, frankly, there have been postings very close to that by Dean supporters. Claiming that Dean would be "Wellstoned" within six months of a Dean/Clark win next November, for example.


Edit: Sorry, typo - changed Clark/Dean to Dean/Clark.

[KaraokeKarlton]

39. That was not a bash for God's Sake, it was the truth!

Clark has gotten off to a bit of a rocky start and was getting hounded with all kinds of "gotcha" questions by the press. He didn't have prepared statements to properly answer those kinds of questions and the result was that he got lambasted on here over it. Know what else? I fucking defended him and advised Dean supporters to lay off him...and I am a Dean supporter. It hasn't been just Dean supporters who have taken part in the attacks on Clark posted here. And MOST Dean supporters haven't taken part in any bashing of Clark, but have just responded to attacks on Dean. It's a viscious circle that gets started by just one person posting a bash. Then all hell breaks loose. BOTH sides are equally responsible for the shitty behavior.

[wndycty]

59. This thread is not about Clark or Dean. .

. . .its about the level of discourse here on the DU and you used it to criticize Clark. Of course you would accuse me of being overly sensitive. Under normal circumstances there would be nothing wrong with what you said, but this is not a thread about either candidate, its about the DU!

[MoonRiver]

90. These disruptors, Dean supporters and others, will never change.

It's up to the moderators to do something about them. Otherwise DU will slowly become just a hate infested gossip board. Nobody with valid concerns about this country will want to participate.

[MuseRider]

2. Hey

I blew off a bit yesterday. Felt terrible and spent a bit of time publicly apologizing myself. This is hard, it really is. Hopefully we can all step back a bit and not respond to flames and not flame ourselves. Possible? I kinda doubt it.

[Padraig18]

3. I did call it such!

Padraig18 (551 posts) Sun Sep-28-03 03:09 PM
"Response to Original message

20. Shame on YOU!

Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 03:10 PM by Padraig18
This is unadulterated FLAME bait calculated to further 'stir shit'!



'We stand at Rossa's grave not in sadness, but in exultation of spirit... This is a place of peace sacred to the dead, where men should speak with all charity and all restraint; but I hold it a Christian thing... to hate evil, to hate untruth, to hate oppression, and hating them to strive to overthrow them... while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree, shall never be at peace."

I disagree with anyone posting flame bait, but I can also understand (*Dean supporter* DING! DING!) how you could be SORELY provoked.

I respect your frank admission, and you have earned MY respect thereby! :toast:

[LibertarianLurker04]

5. That's okay

Watching the Left consume itself with hate helps those of us on the libertarian right stay hopeful!

[jonnyblitz]

8. aww come on. a Libertarian wouldnt want Bush to remain as prez

He sure likes to spend spend spend...

[LibertarianLurker04]

10. No kidding

But there's a hierarchy of evil, and Bush isn't at the top of it.

[jonnyblitz]

11. wow

i want some of what u are on...

[Maddy McCall]

17. So who is at the evil apex, lurker??

If it ain't bush, then you must be insinuating that it's Rummy? Ashcroft? Rove? C'mon...spill it!

[LibertarianLurker04]

19. I was referring to candidates

I was referring to candidates more than individuals in office.

Kucinich would be the worst, although he's a no-hoper.

Of the viable Democratic candidates, I'm not sure whether Dean or Gephardt would be worse. Probably Gephardt.

Kerry is mostly harmless.

Clark may well turn out to be a crank.

Lieberman is probably the best choice, but is also a no-hoper.

[Maddy McCall]

32. Well, Bush will be an incumbent candidate...

so where does he fit into your schemata of evil? Is he less evil than the Dem candidates you mentioned? Less evil than Lieberman?

[LibertarianLurker04]

37. Yes

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, he's less evil than the Dem candidates.

[Maddy McCall]

41. So why are you at DU?

You support Bush over Dem candidates? After having been canned twice already, you should give up.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

46. What were your handles previously?

I'd love to know. You're a typical disruptor-you add nothing of substance to the conversation. It would be wonderful know about what life experiences brought you to the assumption that Libertarianism is a viable political ideology.

Do share-we're all curious.

[MariMayans]

65. yeah, Lieberman is a libertarian wet dream

The candidate most aligned against social freedoms (although for a Propertarian he does have an admirable record on economic "freedom") is your candidate :eyes:

[boxster]

6. No offense, but I think an anti-Clark post

isn't quite the same as comparing Dean to someone who caused mass suicide. And, frankly, 'Anti-Clark roll call' was pretty tame in comparison.

That being said, I don't think any of the negative, unsubstantiated claims postings are helpful to the candidates themselves. It's pretty hard to take a candidate seriously when their supporters post unsubstantiated BS, no matter who the target is.

[wndycty]

9. Do you realize. . .

. . .that was my first (and hopefully only) flame bait thread. So do you think I just started that thread to flame Dean and his supporters or do you not think it was a reaction to all of the crap that has been going on lately? So my Dean=Jim Jones thread started it all? I think not.

[boxster]

22. No, I agree that you didn't start it all.

My point - at least what I was trying to do - was say that your thread outweighed the one you linked to.

Frankly, your thread isn't any worse than the "Dean will be 'Wellstoned' within six months of a Dean/Clark win next November" one I saw last night.

That one pretty much topped 'em all.

[wndycty]

25. Hey I know it was harsh. . .

. . .I meant it to be. As they say in basketball if you are going to foul, foul hard. If people want to engage in bashing they had better be prepared for what is thrown at them. As I said, I try to stay above this shit, so if I felt provoked you must assume things have gotten bad.

Thats the point I am trying to make, I should not have said what I did, but what is happening on this board is just getting unbearable.

[boxster]

55. It is getting pretty ridiculous,

and it makes me wonder if there aren't a few Freepers posting in disguise.

I agree that it's hard to stay above the fray and it's easy to join the kick-the-candidate game. I think it's important that you realize you did what you abhor, but you also understand why.

I look at the bashing this way - it sucks because it draws away from discussions on the "real" issues, but it obviously shows that people believe in their candidates enough to completely lose it! Hehe....

[salin]

7. The whole lot of you need to appologize

I have never been angry at the forum before. But today is awful. There are some serious attempts at discussions beyond Clark and Dean. But you all have to start 20 threads - each to make your own related point - not on the thread but with a new thread so that any DISCUSSION thread gets forced off the front page in five minutes or less.

I appreciate your appology but it should be to the whole forum - and it shouldn't just be from you.

Sorry but this is a nadir for DU today.

[Rebellious Republican]

12. Well said wndycty....

Actually I have been pretty much undecided on candidates. I have also gotten tired of of all the flame baiting going on. I'm starting to think that we have been infiltrated by the Freerepublic.

:kick:
ANYONE BUT BUSH IN "04"

[w4rma]

13. Did you read the posts responding to "Anti-Clark roll call"?

I don't think you did, otherwise you wouldn't have said that it wasn't "considered flame bait".

Please retract that statement.

[wndycty]

15. Why. . .

. . .because you and others did not think it was flamebait? Flamebait is pretty subjective, one person's critical post is another person's flamebait.

[dsc]

24. you might try reading

It is clear the poster's point is that the thread was called flamebait in real time. Since I didn't see the thread I can't comment on the accuracy of that statment but that is what he was saying.

[w4rma]

27. dsc's response is correct. Will you retract your statement? (n/t)

[wndycty]

38. Nope

:kick:

[w4rma]

48. Then this thread you've started is a lie, IMHO.

wndycty:
"I take responsibility for my actions and how they may have harmed the DU", nope, lie.
"I want to be respectful, I don't want to bash other candidates or their supporters", nope, lie.
"I have gone out of the way to be respectful of other candidates because all of us need to support whomever gets the Democratic nomination.", nope, lie.
"challenge, lets debate, lets critically examine the Democratic candidates, but lets be fair!", nope, lie.
"Going forward I am going to bite my tongue because we need to win in Novemeber 2004.", nope, lie.

[wndycty]

56. Believe what you will. . .

. . .I extended an olive branch. If you are not going to meet me halfway, why should I waste my time?

[w4rma]

57. Your "olive branch" has thorns and is a false one. (n/t)

[wndycty]

60. Well thats all you get. . .

Take it or leave it, I assume you will be leaving it.

[w4rma]

61. "Anti-Dean roll call" - Will wndycty denounce this thread as "flame bait"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=425046

[wndycty]

62. Considered it denounced. . .

And I will not go there to denounce it because I do not want to do anything to keep alive.

If you know anything about my DU life you would know that my flamebait was out of character. I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you differently.

[w4rma]

63. You still refuse to retract your statement that is either a lie

or a smear or was incorrect. And I think you know it was incorrect, now. This thread of yours can't be taken seriously if you practice intellectual dishonesty.

[wndycty]

64. So you are going to hold me to a standard. . .

. . .that is not being practiced here on the DU. How am I being intellectually dishonest. What hoops are you trying to get me to jump through?

[w4rma]

66. It's being practiced by many on DU, including myself (I try to).

I'm asking is that you don't mischaracterize Dean supporters as you try to do in this thread with the statement I'm asking you to retract.

I am a Dean supporter and I posted on that thread before seeing this one, therefore you're mischaracterizine, me, also.

[wndycty]

67. What is it you want me to retract. . .

. . .do you want me just to retract, or do you want me to mean it?

[w4rma]

68. copying post 13 here + a comment

Did you read the posts responding to "Anti-Clark roll call"?

I don't think you did, otherwise you wouldn't have said that it wasn't "considered flame bait".

Please retract that statement.

Yes, you should scan the responses to the thread (started by a Kucinich supporter, btw) by Dean supporters. Most if not all denounce the thread, contrary to your characterization.

[wndycty]

69. For me to retract that statement. . .

. . .I would have had to have first accused a Dean supporting of starting that thread. Did I accuse a Dean supporter of starting that thread? So why am I going to retract a statement I did not make? I am serious. Did I accuse a Dean supporter of starting that thread?

[w4rma]

70. Irrelevent

Who started the thread is irrelevent, I shouldn't have noted that in my post.

wndycty says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not.

Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

I assume that Dean supporters considered your Dean = Jim Jones thread flame bait. You say that this "Anti-Clark roll call" was not considered flame bait, implying that the Dean supporters did not consider it flame bait. A quick scan of the responses reveals that most Dean supporters do consider it flame bait.

[wndycty]

72. Rationalize and twist all you want. . .

I did not say what you accused me of. Now did I? You can assume I meant something. . .but I did not say what you thought I said. Now you want me to retract something I did not say. The olive branch is still extended. :-)

[w4rma]

75. Here is what you said. IMHO, you should retract it

or explain why this translation is incorrect:
I assume that Dean supporters considered your Dean = Jim Jones thread flame bait. You say that this "Anti-Clark roll call" was not considered flame bait, implying that the Dean supporters did not consider it flame bait. A quick scan of the responses reveals that most Dean supporters do consider it flame bait.

wndycty says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not.

Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

[wndycty]

77. And has that thread been shut down by the moderators?

Nope, its alive and kicking, while mine was shut down. So again what I am retracting? Olive branch still extended.

[wndycty]

78. As of 5:15 PM Central

The Anti-Clark thread is still being allowed to operate by the moderators. . .meanwhile:

This is from my unfortunate thread from earlier

elad ADMIN (1000+ posts)
73. Locking this thread - flamebait
http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=422605#423010

[w4rma]

79. the statement

wndycty still says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not (by most Dean supporters).

[wndycty]

80. LOL You added the (Dean supporters)

Please tell me you did not just do that. C'mon get real you are absolutely irrational.

[w4rma]

81. Olive branch accepted.

From the context surrounding the statement it looked, to me (and also some other DUers), like you were refering to Dean supporters instead of the DU admin.

Note, the admin is *not* showing bias towards Dean. This thread hasn't been locked either:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=425046

[wndycty]

82. Well good. . .

. . .and in the future please do not put words in my mouth. When you added that (Dean supporters) to my statement it really pissed me off. I was ready to retract my olive branch, I think I would have been justified, but I did not. You should have just left my statement alone. As I have said I have sat silent while the General has been attacked. My thread this morning was my reaction. I regret sinking to the level of others. If you know anything about me, you know I am fair. I took responsibility for what I said this morning, but I was not about to retract something I did not say. I hope you respect my not feeling the need to retract something I did not say.

[wndycty]

71. You want me to retract something I DID NOT SAY

Lets me rational. . .I did not say what you think I said. I never accused Dean supporters of starting the Ant-Clark thread. . .did I? You just assumed I did.

[w4rma]

73. Irrelevent

Who started the thread is irrelevent, I shouldn't have noted that in my post.

wndycty says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not.

Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

I assume that Dean supporters considered your Dean = Jim Jones thread flame bait. You say that this "Anti-Clark roll call" was not considered flame bait, implying that the Dean supporters did not consider it flame bait. A quick scan of the responses reveals that most Dean supporters do consider it flame bait.

[wndycty]

74. Its not all about Dean...get over it.

The offending thread was, this one is not. You want a retraction for something that did not happen, its something you ASS U ME D happened. Olive branch still extend :-)

[w4rma]

76. Here is what you said. IMHO, you should retract it

or explain why this translation is incorrect:
I assume that Dean supporters considered your Dean = Jim Jones thread flame bait. You say that this "Anti-Clark roll call" was not considered flame bait, implying that the Dean supporters did not consider it flame bait. A quick scan of the responses reveals that most Dean supporters do consider it flame bait.

wndycty says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not.

Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

[AWD]

88. W4rma...

...you get the feeling like you're hearing "Fuck you, accept my damn olive branch, you liar."????

That's what I'm seeing, too.

[wndycty]

89. Damn. . .

People putting words in my mouth again. LOL did you see that it was proven I did not say what I was accused of saying.

[w4rma]

91. It was simple miscommunication.

Look. Noone's putting words into your mouth. Surely you can see how one could read that statement and think you were talking about Dean supporters instead of DU's admin. I didn't have any information about your Dean = Jim Jones thread, including the information about it being locked by the admin until your post #78.

[wndycty]

92. I call this putting words into my mouth

w4rma (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-28-03 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #77

79. the statement

Edited on Sun Sep-28-03 05:19 PM by w4rma
wndycty still says:
I think its funny that my thread calling Dean Jim Jones was considered flame bait but the following thread is not (by most Dean supporters).

Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. for President!


NOTE: you put in the (by most Dean supporters). I did not. You put words in my mouth. Go to the first post. You put words in my mouth and you know it. You cannot deny it!

[w4rma]

94. I asked you to explain why my translation was incorrect in post 75

I assume that Dean supporters considered your Dean = Jim Jones thread flame bait. You say that this "Anti-Clark roll call" was not considered flame bait, implying that the Dean supporters did not consider it flame bait. A quick scan of the responses reveals that most Dean supporters do consider it flame bait.

In post 70 I stated my interpretation. You didn't tell me why I was wrong. You just said, and I paraphrase: "I did not say that".

I understand you were referring to DU admin, now. I'm sorry that we couldn't clear this up before now.

[wndycty]

96. And then why are you bringing this up again?

You know what I was saying. . .I thought the issue was dead, then you and AWD bring it up again.

[w4rma]

99. The issue is dead, IMHO

It's pretty obvious that AWD followed the post 76 fork instead of the post 75 fork which lead to my understanding of what you were trying to say.

[dsc]

47. You are literally unbeleiveable

prompted by you I went to look at that thread. And what did I see. A thread posted by a Kucinich supporter and on which a majority of the Dean supporters who posted either said they would vote for Clark or both said that and decried the thread. One used several dozen flaming faces to do so (you can't honestly say you missed that or the Dean avitar on that post). Yes a couple of Dean supporters said they wouldn't vote for Clark but a majority said the opposite. You either didn't read the thread that you claim outraged you so or you purposely are misreporting it here.

[Padraig18]

18. MMM HMMMM!

I even *shouted* "Shame on you!" in my response. :)

[patdem]

14. I am totally undecided and KKKarl rove is trying real hard to make up

my mind. I want whomever beats bush* period!

[JNelson6563]

16. I hafta wonder

First of all I want to state that my earlier flame bait thread was a result of my being pushed over the edge in regards to the constant Clark bashing.

I see. So you chose to sit at the keyboard and post that tripe (and plenty more like it) but it was because of the actions of others? Am I understanding this statement of yours correctly?

I want to be respectful, I don't want to bash other candidates or their supporters, but what I am supposed to do when my candidate is under constant attack, some of it justified, but most of it reckless flame bait?

So, are you proposing that there is absolutely no other way to address flame-bait threads than to do likewise? You seem to frame this question in such a way that to answer any other way is beyond the realm of reason. This is simply more justification for your own terrible behavior.

Here's my favorite.....

I take responsibility for my actions and how they may have harmed the DU, will others?

No, I didn't see you take responsibility for your own actions, quite the contrary. So you do a song and dance that is suppose to appear as contrition but it is really blame-placing and justification. Then you go on to infer others will not be able to adhere to your lofty morals....lol! <snarf>

*sighhhhhhhhhh*

Julie

[wndycty]

21. LOL

-snip-
So, are you proposing that there is absolutely no other way to address flame-bait threads than to do likewise? You seem to frame this question in such a way that to answer any other way is beyond the realm of reason. This is simply more justification for your own terrible behavior.
-snip-
So are you saying I engage in bashing and flamebait on a regular basis?

-snip-
No, I didn't see you take responsibility for your own actions, quite the contrary. So you do a song and dance that is suppose to appear as contrition but it is really blame-placing and justification. Then you go on to infer others will not be able to adhere to your lofty morals....lol! <snarf>
-snip-

Is the thread not me taking responsibility for my actions? What should I do? Write an e-mail to every Dean fan who was offended? Would that be better?

[clar]

45. You miss the point

It's not about offending Dean supporters, it's about offending every reasonable person. These distasteful skirmishes waste board space and time. As someone suggested important topics get squeezed out. Of course you're far from the worst offender, you just happened to step way over the line. It's about self-control. It's about not buying into the bullshit. That said, I think you should just forget it and move on.

[JNelson6563]

87. I'll put it this way

since you apparently couldn't grasp the point the way I originally put it.

If you would have offered an apology for your actions, sans the disclaimer that it was really the behavior of others that was the cause of your POS behavior, I'd have taken it more seriously.

It has nothing to do with offended Dean supporters. It has everything to do with your "apology".

You control your actions. You choose to react as you do. No one's behavior determines yours in such a situation. You blamed your behavior on those slamming Clark. Period.

With that said, I hope you do refrain from replying in kind to future slams. Hit alert if they are that low or simply address the content (i.e. "I don't see one fact in your attack, simply opinion", "do you have any evidence of this?" etc) You have the power....we all do.

Julie

[LibertarianLurker04]

23. And in other news...

While calculating how many minutes this account has left to live, I see the time on DU is three hours off. Unless this server is hosted in the middle of the Atlantic?

*tick*

*tock*

*tick*

*tock*

[VolcanoJen]

30. Simple fix...

... and no, our server is not located in the mid-Atlantic.

You can choose your time zone by going to "Options," and then "Edit your preferences."

[LibertarianLurker04]

33. Ah

Thanks for the tip. It'll come in handy next time.

[Maddy McCall]

43. Meaning the FOURTH time he re-registers.

He's already been canned twice. This will be a third.

LOL that he finds us so intriguing that he wants to spend his sunday afternoon with us.

[w4rma]

36. Yup. The default setting is GMT, I believe. (n/t)

[dsc]

34. You are supposed to set your time zone yourself

I can't recall off hand how to do that but that is what you need to do. I think it was upon registration that you were given that option.

[LibertarianLurker04]

40. How very international...

[dsc]

49. I haven't an idea why they did it that way

the old site showed EST for me but I don't think it did for every one.

[shanti]

29. so?

you were "pushed over the edge". why are you taking this personally? i'm a dean supporter who's ready much negativity against him too, but i refuse to get vicious in return.


remember, you DID have a choice to go there, didn't you?

[wndycty]

35. One flamebait/bash from me. . .

And I am over reacting. . .oh please.

[shanti]

50. the point is

that most of us haven't posted ANY flame bait threads against other candidates.

one or a million, it doesn't matter, really, but it DOES speak about YOU.

[wndycty]

52. I am sure it does. . .

. . .and for those who will let my flame bait thread define me on DU there is absolutely nothing I can do to change your opinion of me. I am sure there are others who will put it in perspective.

[acerbic]

83. Logic check:

First of all I want to state that my earlier flame bait thread was a result of my being pushed over the edge in regards to the constant Clark bashing.
...
Anti-Clark roll call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=424214

So A KUCINICH SUPPORTER started an anti-Clark thread and you "retaliated" by starting an anti-Dean thread.

What brand of logic are you using?

[wndycty]

84. Not at all. . .

My thread was well before the Anti-Clark thread was posted. I raised the issue of the Anti-Clark thread to question why I was shut down and others are allowed to stay open. I was shut down by the DU moderators, that one and one attacking Dean have not been shot down. This thread that I started here was talk about how the tone of DU has changed and how I contributed to it. My earlier Dean/flamebait thread was not a reaction to the Anti-Clark thread started by a Kucinich supporter. . .it was well before that.

[Padraig18]

97. SWEET SUFFERIN' JESUS ON A POGO STICK!!!!

Can we let this inane post DIE, please? :grr:

[wndycty]

98. I am ready to. . .

But I am not going to let any questions to me just go unanswered.