Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Blogroll Purge Fallout Continues

When I signed up for one of those aggregators that I wanted to be a part of a while ago (you know, the directories that you show you belong to by adding their little button to the sidebar of your site), I also subscribed to a blog marketing newsletter (which I hardly read anyway - but I do come across some interesting stuff in it now and then).

The other day, the newsletter included a link to an article about how Google rankings work which included info about the effect of being included on the blogrolls of popular sites. I decided to send that link to skippy because he's been very involved in blogging about the blogroll purge. He posted the info on his site and throughout blogtopia (y!sctp!) including over at BooMan Tribune where BooMan partly rebutted skippy's post with this. (You'll recall that BooMan was very forgiving of kos after his site was purged from the Almighty dkos blogroll).

markos gave every diarist their own blogroll, thereby immensely increasing the number of bloglinks emanating from his site. i don't know how powerful those links are compared to the homepage, but it would seem he has greatly increased the potential for helping google rankings and taking himself out of the decision making process.

skippy, being the investigative kangaroo that he is, then contacted the author of that Google rankings article and has posted his response and it's not good news, nor does it support BooMan's suppositions - a fact BooMan is not very happy about. Nor should he be. (You'll notice that a kos defender™ has predictably shown up in that thread to stand up for King kos' now-tarnished honour. Those minions work so hard. I wonder what they get out of it - besides absolutely nothing from kos and egg on their faces).

In a nutshell, for those who are less technologically inclined, the shorter version of the author's answers is that there certainly is a big difference between being linked to from a blogroll on the main page of Daily Kos as opposed to being included in an individual's blogroll. In fact, the way kos and his technical team have things set up behind the scenes, the "bots" that search his site have actually been disabled in a way that totally obliterates the recognition of the blogrolls of individual Daily Kos members.

the diary owner's blogrolls are being disallowed to googlebot by the robots.txt files. the url structure of the diary owners' blogrolls is like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/user/username/blogroll

because of this line in the robots.txt file - "disallow: /user" - google isn't allowed to visit those diary users' blogroll pages, and index them, and follow the links upon them. in terms of ranking value for these user blogrolls, there is none, because google isn't allowed to visit those pages.

So, there you have it.

The individual blogroll compromise that was offered by kos after Blogroll Amnesty Day is worthless in terms of how your site might be picked up via a Google search. Overall, that does affect your site's rankings and your ability to use those rankings to do things like justifying a higher ad price if you're into the money-making end of the blogosphere.

And yes, skippy and others certainly do have the right to say "I told you so". Good work, roo. That's why you're skippy and others...are not.
 

132 comments:

pyrrho said...

you know what will be funny... if kos sells dailykos.

haha. that will be a blast to witness as the heads explode like melons at a gallagher show.

DavidByron said...

I guess I am not seeing the immanent demise of dKos as so many others seem to (want to?) see. This all just seems like a huge case of sour grapes.

I don't recall anyone saying that Kos (and therefore by implication all blog owners) had a duty of care to the rest of the blogosphere and their commentators before. The rule has always been that each blog owner was a complete tyrant and could do whatever they wanted, have whatever rules they want, ban whoever they want, link to whever they want, etc etc. Access was never an issue because, and this is still true wrt the lowly commentators of course, access was always solely at the pleasure of the local tyrant.

None of these local tyrants had any issue with that formula until they found themselves on the receiving end of it. They still don't have any issue with that formula except as far as Kos goes in treating them. In discussing Kos it's all about pulling together and having a duty of care. For themselves it's still all about "my board, my rules" and that's that.

At best Skippy's work could be the basis of an argument that there was some self-interest in Kos' keeping things the way they were. But who is the appropriate judge of Kos' self-interest in the tyrant-system? Clearly it is Kos himself. Perhaps he took into account these considerations in making his decision. Maybe he didn't.

Is there a duty of care for others in the blogosphere? Is there a duty of access? If there is I would expect it to be much more towards commentators than towards other blogs. IE a duty within the community rather than among communities.

DavidByron said...

Man, this guy's knowledge of history sucks

But that aside it's this ridiculous framing of Armando as suddenly the heroic representative of free speech and equality that I have to take issue with:

Markos' banning of Armando last month was, in my view, the critical break with the "Let a Hundred Bloggers Bloom" model of blogging that had predominated since the beginning of the movement. It was the historical equivalent of Stalin's exiling of Trotsky from Russia. Marisacat and her circle have routinely viewed Armando as sitting at the epicenter of the nefarious corruption of the Big Boyz of Blogging, his abusive behavior to other posters held up as evidence of a double standard of behavior for those who were "in" with the BBB and those who were "out." Such analyses miss some essential differences between Armando and the other members of the BBB. While Armando was in fact abusive to other posters when he considered their arguments intellectually dishonest, he was also a powerful and influential voice for equality. To Armando, the only thing that mattered was whether he thought your argument was valid

Back around the time I was banned at MLW Armando and Pyrrho were discussing banning issues and Armando was not shy in saying he was all for it:

Personally I never had a direct problem with him [DavidByron], but I know I would have deleted every diary he wrote on feminism. They offended. And of course, I am an authoritarian. You too [MSOC] it seems.

And again in a comment made before I was banned:

Well, I would hope kos would [Delete posts critical of feminism]. I think they offend. They offend me. This may sound rude but I have never had a problem with David Byron myself. I like that I can be honest with him.

In the second linked to thread Armando actually argued that dKos was more of a free speech area than MLW was (more democratic).

Remind me if I am wrong here but Armando didn't complain when Pyrrho was banned from dKos did he? In fact he went to MLW to post an attack diary disguised as an "apology" where he accused Pyrrho of breaking the faith.

I suppose it is possible Armando will start talking more about duty and rights now that he's been on the receiving end of a banning in the same way that Pyrrho has, but I doubt it. I really don't see him as changing his views on this -- he's a royalist through and through.

catnip said...

you know what will be funny... if kos sells dailykos.

Well, he's said before in an interview that he only planned to be in the political game for another 5 years or so, so that wouldn't surprise me.

pyrrho said...

not that I finished that post david... but I for one don't say kos has to do anything.

Let me be clear... kos, do what you want... everyone else... look and see what an ass he is.

clear enough.

NO INTENTION to tell him what to do. It's just calling a spade a spade... confusing to you I'm sure, as you call a spade whatever you have to to piss off the most people at once.

DavidByron said...

pyrrho you are being disingenuous.

If you call someone an ass then you are saying there is a moral issue involved and that is the same as telling that person there's something they have to do --- namely to quit being an "ass" by the means you prescribe.

Why the double think on this pyrrho? Why are you so at odds with yourself here? Do you or do you not think that Kos has a duty to grant access? And if you do, then don't you think that other blog owners also have that duty?

DavidByron said...

Talk about irony. The most thugish person at MLW, gestapo chief himself, eugene, calls the kettle black:

DHinMI is probably one of the most thuggish people I have ever encountered in my life. I was calling him "a common, garden variety thug" as early as 2005, maybe even 2004. He always gave off bad and ugly vibes.

Pyrrho said...

>If you call someone an ass then you are saying there is a moral issue involved and that is the same as telling that person there's something they have to do --- namely to quit being an "ass" by the means you prescribe.

no, I think a person can be an ass to one person and good friend to another.

I believe it all washes out if there is light and many eyes on the subject, thus what I like to call the fucking internet.

That's why I have put up with so much bullshit from you, it's productive, I can see I'll never think like you on many things, but that doesn't mean I can't benefit from exposure to your ideas.

I honestly care about changing myself to be better, and I want people to feel the same way about changing themselves. I have not intention of changing the world by MAKING it, the world will only be seduced into the future BY ITSELF.

DavidByron said...

no, I think a person can be an ass to one person and good friend to another.

That doesn't make any sense; it makes no connection to what I said. If you call Kos an ass you are telling him he needs to quit being an ass. Similarly when you complain that you "put up with my bullshit" (which you don't - your boards all banned me) you are telling me I need to change.

Is your inability to recognise your own judmentalism due to a fear of being seen as a hypochrite?

it's productive, I can see I'll never think like you on many things, but that doesn't mean I can't benefit from exposure to your ideas.

Then why do you call my ideas "bullshit" instead of eg "provocative"? And similarly why is Kos an "ass" if he's just some guy you happen to not get along with?

This attacking people and then pretending you are not -- it's very feminist of you pyrrho. Very catty.

I honestly care about changing myself to be better, and I want people to feel the same way about changing themselves. I have not intention of changing the world by MAKING it

You mean "people" not "the world".

And if you really go around making accusations and calling people on their behaviour WITHOUT any intention of challenging them and changing them then you're just an asshole aren't you? insulting people for it's own sake.

I take it for granted that when you say "bullshit" at some point in there you are trying to encourage in me a positive change. Yes?

ms_xeno said...

Perhaps Kos will devote himself to charity after he sells the empire. But I still find my earlier scenario of well-paid "embedded" defender of the gated-community internet approach to be more plausible.

I can see it now: The Internets Are Too Sacred To Be Trusted To Just Anyone. Join The McCurry Foundation today and get our complimentary totebag.

DavidByron said...

Yet another 'mea culpa' from MSOC at MLW

Here we go again. Maryscott cops to being a monumentally crap moderator and swears to do better but reading between the lines we're headed for the same old same old.

I sat by passively and allowed people like eugene and dhonig and 5hearts and bluebird and Diane and Sean_Mykael, to name several, to behave toward a few "untouchables,"...

This has been going on since day one when they all were hounding me to be banned. Now Maryscott says that's all behind her yet I remain banned. In protecting Armando she threatened and suspended several other embers today, and yet they remain suspended and threatened. Where is the roll back? if there has been a change of policies where is it?

I sat passively by and allowed all of the above and others to verbally abuse people like cityduck and shergald and a few others -- the dissenters, the "unpopular kids" -- and waited for those abused people to fend for themselves, because the abusers were my friends

And she'd do it again in a second.

If it were someone else's blog and I merely a member among members, I'd have cried "Foul" a lot sooner than The Blogging Curmudgeon and the few others who had the temerity to call me on it.

That's terribly gratifying speaking as the person who was the first to cry foul.

I'm sure the Curmudgeon is also terribly gratified and yet for some reason he's the one on the way out instead of Armando.

That double standard with which I treated the membership of My Left Wing no longer exists.

Bullshit. Even in this vapid diary Maryscott repeats that she and pyrrho are to have favoured status.

no one is leaving here unless of his or her own volition. I am not banning X to make Y happy, nor banning Y to make x feel "safe."

Bullshit. I was banned to make eugene, dhonig and sassy texan happy, as well as some of the other gestapo members. Again, those who were threatened to make Armando happy have not been apologised to either.

I didn't do it during the "anti-Semitism" flame war, I won't do it now and I won't do it in the future. Banning is for trolls. Trolls are people who come here to deliberately disrupt the site.

Maryscott you DID do it during the "anti-semitism" war (dhonig's flame attack title I assume - way to show favouritism btw). You threatened to ban various supporters of the palestinians and allowed dhonig to make outrageous attacks. You just weren't quite as godawful as normal.

Why people persist in thinking that if they just hurl enough abuse toward the offending member or toward me, or send me enough plaintive emails begging me to get rid of X for the "good of the site," I'll somehow change my mind and unceremoniously DUMP someone from the rolls who has done NOTHING WRONG HERE , I don't know.

Well let me explain it then. Because it fucking works you idiot. It works on you and it works everywhere else too.

in my time as a blogger, I have learned a few ugly truths, and one of them is that many adults behave like children online when they get into conflicts.

YOU'RE ONE OF THEM. Not as bad as the gestapo squad but considering that you are happy to throw your weight around (even in the so-called mea culpa diary!) and threaten people who disagree with you purely for disagreeing, you're one of the most chilling effects at the site.

People arguing isn't a big problem. YOU'RE THE PROBLEM. People having their comments deleted, being humiliated, attacked by the mob, threatened and banned causing vendettas. That's the problem. You magnify every problem. You make a molehill into a mountain.

Look: Everyone, eventually, encounters people with whom he cannot get along. Each of us ends up discovering a personality conflict that makes her miserable, drives her to distraction, torments her, keeps her up at night.

What the fuck? If you are up at night because of some on-line tiff that's your problem. People who don't get on don't have a problem because they don't talk to each other.

If two people are arguing all the time it's because they want to argue. So why not just LET THEM? Why do you have to fly into the middle of it every time and make it into a perfect SHIT STORM? Bullying, threatening, humiliating people, attacking them and making them even more defensive or angry?

Your "solutions" are 10 times worse than anything they are supposed to "fix". when are you going to get it? How many more time do we have to sit through another "mea culpa" before you understand what those words mean?

You're crap at moderating. You are incredibly heavy handed. You're brazenly biased towards your circle of friends -- who for some reason are mostly blog nazis. You tie yourself up in ridiculous knots about trivia. Why don't you just quit moderating?

It couldn't possibly be any worse.

I apologise for any and all bad behaviour on my part. Even toward those people who have behaved terribly toward me and do not regret it.

Bullshit. Apology NOT accepted.

theory said...

catnip,

I am sorry to see your exchange with MSOC and that MSOC has banned hrh... I have not followed closely enough to see how it all sorted out but I'm well familiar with the themes.

sorry to see it.

I have to admit, I can't imagine why anyone at marisacat's blog would object to sexual metaphor in politics, it's there every day in "big slurping" helpings... too much peevishness if you ask me.

I really don't mind seeing the animosity that build for real reasons... but come on... anyway, not casting blame nor protecting from blame... MSOC is on her own, though I will cop to not asking her to change the decision nor criticizing her too hard for it.

I did talk to her, this sort of thing is a concern.

perhaps if it were a real issue we could arrange a blog-summit and trade her reinstatement at MLW for mine at marisacat's blog... hah, I kill me.

That was just a little humor to remind us not to take it seriously, but not being funny I thought I should explain explicitely.

anyway, take care, I will continue to see you around the internets I hope.

pyrrho said...

"no, I think a person can be an ass to one person and good friend to another.

That doesn't make any sense;"

it doesn't make sense when you are stuck with an antiquated worldview stuck on classical objectivism long since proven inadequate for all but the most rudimentary thinking.

DavidByron said...

pyrrho what I meant was that your statement was a non-sequitur. What you said is true but it does not contradict what I said; namely that if you call someone an "ass" then you are saying they need to do something different.

This has nothing to do with relativism unless by relativism you really mean inconsistency.

Calling someone "ass" is a moral judgement. You are making a moral judgement about Kos in all this stuff you have been saying about him. You are saying that he ought to behave a certain way, and that when he doesn't he is immoral (an "ass").

Relativism is not self-contradiction. You either do or do not think Kos' actions are immoral. Which is it?

Pyrrho said...

"namely that if you call someone an "ass" then you are saying they need to do something different."

only if you demonstrate why people should not be asses.

have you demonstrated that?

many people think one has to be an ass to be strong enough to survive.

you make assumptions saying an ass should change.

I call Armando and ass, AND have asked him to change at times, but those were two different activities.

DavidByron said...

LOL, so you meant "ass" as compliment to Kos? That's your story? So you are saying that Kos has done good in all this? he's just proven his good character and "strength"?

Well I do apologise for jumping to conclusions there pyrrho. I just figured by calling him an ass you were making a negative remark. sorry about that!

DavidByron said...

I have mentioned before how good Marisacat is at saying mean and spiteful, deeply deeply hurtful things to people she attacks. A genius.

Once again Marisacat attacks Maryscott by calling her a bad mother

Here's a picture of the bad mother and son. Beautiful pictures. Real people.

[I hope it's ok to link to those public pics?]

I don't know Marisacat very well. I got banned from her board after two posts (which makes her comments about Maryscott's censorship pretty funny). I compared her blog to Playboy magazine. Everyone says they read it for the articles but it's really the hot saucy gossip people like looking at.

[And in case people don't know this the articles at Playboy used to be excellent]

So by all means keep up the nasty Marisacat, but this one is way over the line. You NEVER make comments about people's family. Yes I know you have made comments about my own family too. I should say that ordinary people who have a sense of netiquette know that in a flame war you never go after the family. Never. You have no taste so you break that rule. Fair enough; you are a slime-merchant 1st class and that's why we read your soft porn / gossip column.

But goddamit this line about Maryscott being a bad mother has to stop. It's the nastiest shit I've seen since a flame war that ended up with one woman in hospital and the other's husband fired from his job. (Why by the way is it always two women?)

I mean this quite literally:

You ought to be ashamed.

DavidByron said...

More vicious-Marisa watching:

I really suggest the child’s father deal with the mother. But it seems to me I remember a long ago diary where he gloried in burnt food, and a child who went to school unkempt. I doubt things have changed. Many of us were appalled at the level and self satisfaction.

I suppose this would be an example of Marisacat's feminism in action? Viciously attacking a fellow liberal, a fellow feminist and a fellow human being. Yes indeed the "child's father" needs to "deal with" that wayward woman. She clearly spends waaay too much time on-line.

Good grief.
There has to be someone reading this that is close enough to Marisa that they can slap some sense into her (metaphorically).

I find her hypocrisy on the feminism thing pretty damn funny but her hypocrisy as a lefty is another thing altogether.

Someone needs to tell her she's going too far.

catnip said...

I have to admit, I can't imagine why anyone at marisacat's blog would object to sexual metaphor in politics, it's there every day in "big slurping" helpings... too much peevishness if you ask me.

Telling a woman to lick another's clit is not a "sexual metaphor in politics". It's a gutter-sniping insult. Geez.

DavidByron said...

Yeah I read all that stuff between you and MSOC, catnip, and I wasn't going to comment, but since you mention it she clearly had the best of you.

You feminists have such a prudish view about sex sometimes. Flame is flame usually and this was no different. MSOC retracted the comment. However she has a point about your taking offense at her when you know that Marisacat says far worse stuff (as above; I assume you agree it's qualitatively worse?), which she never takes back. She also scored when she pointed out that none of you have any prudishness when you are the ones making the remarks.
-----------------------------------

But enough of that. It's not a big deal. What is a big deal is that there seems to be a feud between MSOC and Marisacat over god knows what. Whatever it is it's so trivial I can't even figure it out.

From my perspective they are both right-on lefties (except for the feminist crap naturally) who should be allies.

And I have to say it: two men would never allow personal animosity to get in the way of business like that.

supersoling said...

Well,
for once I agree with David Byron. Families, and especially children, are off limits in attacking the integrity of an opponent.

I appreciate Marisacat's political acumen and even some of the meta calling of bullshit on sellout so called left bloggers. The deep personal attacks however, only undermine whatever credibility she has in her political views.

Though my gag reflex has been repeatedly tested by what I've read at MLW the last couple of days and I've requested that MSOC delete my account, I do have a great deal of empathy for her because she is very similar to my own partner/non partner, only her difficulties are played out in an unfortunate public way. I also empathize deeply with her husband and child for obvious reasons. I am them.

I also have to say, Catnip, that it's hypocritical to call out MSOC on her clit licking comment to hrh when Marisacat's blog has similar things posted. Personally, I don't have a problem with any of it and I don't understand, well, I guess I do, given it's MSOC, why MSOC would turn around and worry about what she said to hrh. It's no big deal. But Mcat's attack on MSOC's family is another thing entirely, and if you're going to call out anyone it should be Mcat.

Y'all have a nice day :o)

DavidByron said...

Talking of possibly sensible things that come out of the mouth of DavidByron and which nobody takes any notice of as a result:

We've entered the post-META stage of the argument at MLW this morning. Maryscott says (my emphasis),

Is anyone else as sick as I am of all the psychodrama around here?

I'm over it, man.

Let's move on, already. Blech. I've taken half a dozen showers and STILL don't feel clean.

Remember Math Barbie?

"Math is hard. Let's go shopping!"

I so totally feel like saying that about running this blog right now. It's exhausting, I feel completely ill-suited to it, like I make things go from bad to worse.... ugh.

Still... betcha couldn't do much better.

: )

Hmph. Who knows.


My guess is that nobody else at MLW (or anywhwere else for that matter) does take it as hard as Maryscott does. On the ocassion of banning me she said she had been having nightmares about the situation at the board.

Anyway she says she feels ill suited to it, which is certainly my view and also that of peeder:

Yeah you're human and melodramatic and very extroverted and that's all part of your appeal. It's very hard, nay, near impossible to be an effective political opinion writer and a forum moderator simultaneously. I haven't seen anyone pull it off. The best examples actually don't do any moderation.

I don't know who peeder had in mind with the comment about no moderation but I would compare Digby's Hullabaloo which has a thriving comments section of regular posters and is comparable to MLW I think. Many of his posts, probably at least one a day go over 100 comments. There are regular personalities posting there and at least one regular "troll" (ie right-winger) as well as personalities on the left that other liberals find exasperating (ie me - not so much recently - and also Jill Baines), and one or two self-apointed gestapo types. All your usually players.

The difference is there's very little META at Hullabaloo. There is never any mention of banning. No threats, no hints, no discussion of it elsewhere. Google "banning" at MLW and Hullabaloo and see the difference.

There's no moderation of any kind at all that I can see. No editing, no deletions, no threats, no attacks by any of the front page posters. Digby himself rarely comments but the others do comment in their own and other threads. it's not that there's no interaction. There's just no feel that the front page authors need to be constantly bossing people around.

And do you know what? The place doesn't fall apart. It's actually better than MLW for noise to signal ratio. Not that I am complaining about MLW's META as some do, but there's definately far less acrimony. The atmosphere is more business-like. There is some gestapo-like activity. Couple of blog nazis tried to run me off and Jill Baines is often attacked. There is a regular right-wing troll and idiots do reply to the troll and encourage the troll. It's all there, but the noise is manageable and it doesn't get out of hand because nobody in authority is stoking the flames. Nobody is humiliated by a busybody leadership.

And if there is a flame war there it just runs it's course. It's not a huge fucking ordeal. People do form grudges to a small extent but because the front page is always looking forward instead of back, that's where people's attention is at.

It seems to me that this model might not work quite as well at MLW because there are already bad habits there, and also (good) META is considered important so there is naturally more navel-gazing. But I definately think that zero moderation would work better at MLW than what currently goes on.

If nothing else at least Maryscott could get some sleep and maybe concentrate on doing what she DOES do well.

(This comment posted here rather than at MLW where it needs to be posted, because despite Maryscott's mea culpa and insistence that everyone is now "equal", they are not and never will be while she's micromanaging everything)

DavidByron said...

Well Marisacat answers my own question about why she hates Maryscott.

She moans and writhes and screams a lot in public, but has never once denied being a paid operative

I'm tempted to conclude Marisacat is a delusional paranoid. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

This comment looks like a denial to me of receiving ANY source of income from ANY politician, although it's mostly about ad money.

In the event that Marisacat is NOT a delusional paranoid I would invite her to provide the evidence she feels she has that Maryscott is a "paid operative".

catnip said...

I also have to say, Catnip, that it's hypocritical to call out MSOC on her clit licking comment to hrh when Marisacat's blog has similar things posted.

Well fuck you then. I don't have a responsibility to run around the blogosphere calling out every insult I see. Even Maryscott, when she called out 5hearts with comments she/he had used in the past said that context doesn't matter. You look at the comment and judge from there. That's exactly what I did with MSOC's comment. I had also never seen MSOC post anything like that before. I'm not entitled to have a reaction to that?

Furthermore, if you read my responses to MSOC, you'll see that I told her I was not saying anything in public about here - positive or negative - while she was under consideration for posting privileges here, which she still is. I broke that rule once only and admitted it and then she tried to pretend I hadn't and threw it back in my face. Today, she's fucking lying about what I wrote. I'm sick of people who lie when the record is right in front of them.

So you can call me hypocritical all you want but it's not my fucking job to be a blog cop. And you have no idea what goes on in private e-mails about these things either, so take your opinion and shove it.

I'm sick and tired of people saying I'm responsible for everything that everybody else writes. Are you? Should you be? And why don't you speak up at mcat's site if that's the way you feel since you post there as well? Did you call out everything at BT or wherever else you post? No. Then why should I be expected to?

All of this is pure bullshit.

As for the consideration of MSOC's posting privileges here, I will abstain from that decision. She wrote that she knew what the decision was the day after she made it because I post at mcat's site. More bullshit. If that was true why did she participate in e-mails with me back and forth after that about her desire to post here? As I told her, that is a group decision. As late as last week, she was fine with that and never questioned me about my posting at mcat's. She never brought that up and now she's using that to attack me on her blog because it's just fucking handy.

She has a vendetta against mcat. Fine. I am not mcat. She's playing the guilt by association game - lumping everyone who posts there together as having a singular opinion about her. Talk about stripping away peoples' individuality. As I told her, I don't stereotype all kossacks or all MLWers but for some reason, it's okay for her to do that about people who post at mcat's site. Why? Because it serves her anger. Period. I'm not playing that game.

She's gone over the edge and has decided that anyone who posts at mcat's is fair game to be attacked on her blog. Attack away, MSOC. Don't expect that there won't be blowback.

supersoling said...

Fuck me?
No thanks, I'll pass.
I did post my disagreement with Marisacat at her blog, if you haven't noticed. Hours ago. Your reply is over the top. I have expressed dissent on different issues at every blog I've ever posted at. I'm an equal opportunity risk taker.

catnip said...

I have expressed dissent on different issues at every blog I've ever posted at.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said it was hypocritical of me not to comment about what's written at mcat's blog. You totally disregarded my reasons and explanation. I've also "expressed dissent on different issues at every blog I've ever posted at." What's your point?

If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy, I'd suggest you look at your own actions and inactions first. When you point a finger, you have 3 pointing back at you.

I haven't even been at mcat's blog since last nite. That's exactly what I wrote about at MSOC's: people like to think they're all knowing and all-seeing and take silence as consent. Well guess what? I was sleeping and actually do have a life to attend to. Silence online does not indicate complicity in anything.

catnip said...

Marisacat,
in regard to your comments about MSOC's husband and child in the last thread, you stepped across a line that should remain uh, unstepped across. Not that I don't agree with what you've said about it. I do. And I have a particularly well informed view into a situation like that because I inhabit a very similar space as her husband apparently does. Any criticism of her is fair game I would say. But as a husband and father in shoes like his, I call foul. Personal foul.


So, you agree with the comment but call foul? That doesn't make much sense.

supersoling said...

I agree with her opinion and call foul on commenting about it. Is that clear enough now?.
Like I said in my original comment here, I don't have a problem with MSOC's clit comment, the same as I don't have a problem with similar comments at Marisacat's blog by her and others. And I'm not requiring you to police all blogs equally. But it should be obvious, it is to me at least, that you spend a lot of time reading and posting at Marisacat's place and should be aware of the bulk of like comments there, as contrasted against the one comment by MSOC that you chose to confront her about. That looks hypocritical to me. It's an opinion, not a personal attack.

My reason for saying that dissent equally at different blogs is because you you brought it up.

"Did you call out everything at BT or wherever else you post? "

Okay? Also, I said nothing about you considering MSOC's request for posting priveleges here. I'm no longer an administrator here, by choice, so it's none of my business. So I don't understand your need to bring all that up.

I hope you'll reconsider your decision to say "Well fuck you then" to me. It was uncalled for.

Arcturus said...

Telling a woman to lick another's clit is not a "sexual metaphor in politics". It's a gutter-sniping insult. Geez.

I feel compelled to point out that they aren't mutually exclusive - whether any of this nonsense is "in politics' is another matter

spit said...

I'm sick and tired of people saying I'm responsible for everything that everybody else writes.

Posting on a blog should never, ever be taken as agreement with all of the sentiments that occur on that blog.

I'm not sure why this has become such an issue across all of the remotely-involved-sniping blogs lately, all of whom IMO share the guilt for all of this crap, but there you go.

I try to counter points with which I disagree wherever I find them. Sometimes I fail in that regard. But all of this "loyalty" bullshit is driving me insane.

Blaaaaaaargh! :P

ms_xeno said...

catnip:

Silence online does not indicate complicity in anything.

Usually, that's true. As for me, I prefer not to get involved in MSOC's issues with Mcat or anyone else because I was not there when the history was unfolding, so to speak. I have never given Dkos or MLW more than a cursory glance in the time they have existed. It's not my affair. Let those directly involved think and work it out for themselves.

catnip said...

all of this "loyalty" bullshit is driving me insane.

That's just it. Where is this "loyalty" attitude coming from? Just because I post on someone's blog doesn't mean I've taken some loyalty oath to agree with everything they say or to protect them. I really don't understand that mindset and stereotyping except for the fact that loyalty is seen as a very big issue at places like BT, dkos, MLW and many other sites, I'm sure. I'm loyal to my site. That's it.

catnip said...

I hope you'll reconsider your decision to say "Well fuck you then" to me. It was uncalled for.

No it wasn't. You brought MSOC's talking point over here while I had already explained myself over there. That was uncalled for.

Arcturus said...

Just because I post on someone's blog doesn't mean I've taken some loyalty oath to agree with everything they say or to protect them.

shoot! does this mean you haven't signed yours yet?

uh oh

spit said...

ms_xeno -- yeah, I usually try to stay out of the spats, and I think I just reminded myself why. I try to shift it to something substantive, which is always bound to fail because the subject of the spat is personal. And I don't really care who likes whom and why or why not. Their justifications for hating each other are almost always crap, searching for a political rationalization for just not getting along.

As for loyalty and all that crap, I try to just stay loyal to my own opinions. Anything else is fake crap. Sometimes I think people in blogtopia* just need more real world friends or something.

*yes, skippy coined the term.

spit said...

Holy crap, I just said "crap" with amazing repetetive crappiness.

Usually I'm more varied in my choices of representations of excrement. I must be losing my edge.

Crap.

(sorry, it amused me).

Booman said...

catnip-

it's really a lot of fun to see people finally realizing what a hypocritical dirtbag you are.

always the same game. ever since Susan pissed you off.

DavidByron said...

I don't understand why people can't get on. It all goes past me really. Everyone seems to enjoy a bit of Good Natured Banter (aka flame war) every now and then. It's rare indeed that at the base of any of these flame wars you find a situation where both sides are not contributing to continuing the fight. It's all voluntary. We choose how to live our lives, who to spend time with. There is no compulsion on-line except by those who ban and otherwise feel they have to force their will on others through "moderation". These are the only "power over" relationships which operate here and of course so often those who spend so much time complaining that they are life's victims are the very ones who leap to force their will upon others whenever they have the opportunity.

But "moderation" aside the Good Natured Banter is all by choice. There is no compulsion in a flame war.

Certainly sometimes people can make accusations that attack someone's reputation. Someone may feel that a response is required. I suspect that this happens less than we might tend to think if on the receiving end.

Marisacat accuses Maryscott of being a "paid operative". It's comical. Absurd. It cannot be taken seriously and yet Maryscott feels it deserves an answer. She makes a formal denial. It's her call. In a sense it is a compliment to Marisacat that such an accusation might be considered worthy of a response. It says that Marisacat has enough gravitas that someone might take this remark seriously. I doubt the same statement from anyone else would.

I can see that. Marisacat gossips about a lot of people and I tend to think what she says has a grain of truth to it when she talks about people I don't know. Someone who didn't know anything about MSOC might assume Marisacat's standard of knowledge was uniform.

However this now inevitably places Marisacat in a spot. If she is found to just be literally making up shit about MSOC that is a very serious strike against her own reputation.

Apparently Marisacat has a policy of "never apologise, never admit a mistake" like our president. This would seem like a good time to re-assess that policy and admit that the statement about MSOC was just a joke that went too far, or.... otherwise take a step back from this.

And I'd still like to know what the real reason for the feud is. I was back at dKos that early the same as they both were but it doesn't help me here.

This is how I see it:

Home is the place where, when you have to go there, They have to take you in.

These two women appear sort of stuck with each other and that is what community is about. So they better figure it out. But at the moment it's all about trying to use force against people instead of coming to terms. The odd thing is the force hasn't really worked. They are separated but they have to keep reading the other site because they are not really separated.

Maryscott offers a sort of jubilee:

If MARISACAT comes here, she gets a clean slate. Understood?

But it's not a real jubilee because she demands sumbission from others as a condition:

I BELIEVE IN FORGIVENESS.

Unfortunately in real relations demanding the conditions of submission that earn forgiveness is unrealistic:

If someone asks forgivenes in good faith and proceeds to make amends for past bad behaviour by BEHAVING WELL, which is how one MAKES amends

That is all true but sometimes people of goodwill can disagree about who has wronged whom. How then can two such people operating on the basis of only forgiveness in this sense ever be reconciled? They cannot.

You need a jubilee.

Nevertheless I think as usual Maryscott has the best of intentions and is moving forward (my favourite quote concerning her is, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.).

catnip said...

Yes, Martin, Susan calling me a sexist (against women) more than once did piss me off. If I recall correctly (and I do), you defended me against those criticisms.

Take your sanctimonious bullshit and shove it.

ms_xeno said...

spit, actually I don't know that the acusations are, as you put it, "crap." Or a mere "spat." That's my point. I wasn't there. At any rate, if those things are true, you can bet that I've been caught up in a number of them: In various spaces, for various reasons. It's just timing and personal preference that has kept me from doing as much here.

Which suits me fine. Let people have it out. My general opinion on such matters is that it's better to get grievances out than let them fester. YMMV.

supersoling said...

Spit,
I envy you. You're just now losing your sanity, whereas I came to the blogs in a full fledged meltdown 2 1/2 years ago :o) Fortunately I'm experiencing a sort of reverse psychosis now where the insanity of the blog meltdowns is helping me to slowly remember my own (admittedly tenuous) grasp on sanity and reality ;o) What a bunch of useless and wasteful crap...doh!! :o)

catnip said...

My general opinion on such matters is that it's better to get grievances out than let them fester.

And some people seem to think that once you do, you're angry forever (probably because they choose to be). Life's too fucking short for grudges and they're a waste of energy - something I have very little of to begin with.

And all of this talk about "hate". I can't speak for anyone but myself but I sure don't "hate" anyone. What's the point of that?

catnip said...

One last thing, Martin. You write an absolutely hysterically charged poor me diary (which no one in that thread even challenges the content of because they're all too busy kissing your butt) and you have the audacity to come here and call me a "dirtbag"?

Have you banned Tracy yet for hunting down my personal information? No? Didn't think so. You're nothing but a hypocrite who can't stand any criticism.

If you thought what mcat wrote was libelous, why didn't you get your lawyer after her?

And what, exactly, was wrong with my opinion about how MSOC allowed her family situation to be exposed in WaPo?

You won't answer those questions because you're too busy showcasing your little "poor me" carnival so everyone will love you.

Pretty damn transparent. Poor you.

Grow a fucking spine.

DavidByron said...

Well several people of good will seem to have pointed out to Marisacat over at her place that she's gone over the line. Currently she's reacting by flying into a hissy fit and throwing the crockery around. She's repeated both the attack on Maryscott's family and the absurd accusation that Maryscott is a "paid operative". It's pretty ugly over there right now.

Ok; she doesn't take criticism well :)

Nevertheless I hope she will take this to heart. People tend to do that better after a night's sleep.

catnip said...

Who's lying Martin?

Re: Don't Let the Paparazzi Get You Down (none / 0)
Boran2-

There are a lot of reasons. The majority of the email I've received recently has been about privacy concerns. Maryb is gone because no one stood up to MCat and the people that went after lawyer's clients. A sizable group of users are silent now because no one stood up to these people when they decided it was okay to post people's clients, when they started going into people's non-political dating profiles and mocking them, when no one stood up to them and said anything. It started with catnip and spiderleaf stirring up problems with me personally, lying about me, linking to pictures of me and my girlfriend, lying about talking to me, getting others to lie about what they talked about, smearing me, making me look like a liar, never correcting the record, never acknowledging a mistake....

It's my reputation. My name is public. You'll notice they never call me BooMan anymore. Always my real name, attached to things like 'no one was a bigger Casey supporter'. I don't only want to stick up for myself, I want to stick up for all of you.

I don't care if you act like a jerk, that doesn't mean I have to stand by and watch someone list out all your clients and dating habits next to your real name, so that you're boss might fire you or you might never get another job at another firm.

It's their right to do that, but it's time for people to speak out because it hasn't just hurt this site, it is hurting all sites. People need to know these people are not our friends, not friends of anything we believe in (despite their pretenses)...

I don't care if they post pictures in the cafe. A troll is a troll. spiderleaf was a troll, so is catnip, so is marisacat. Go and read, and you will not have any remaining doubts.
by BooMan on Sat Mar 24th, 2007 at 07:50:33 PM MST


I have no idea what you're talking about wrt to MaryB and lawyers clients but I see that you persist in lying about my e-mail last year (get over it already) when I said I heard you were dating and good luck etc.

You took that as some kind of threat which you know it wasn't. "How nice for all of you" is not a threat. Yet, you've now gone on endlessly for months about how that set off some shitstorm of concerns over privacy - which I never violated. After that e-mail I moved on but now you've got me involved in some sort of online mob of outers. WTF is that all about?

Just keep milking that to people who don't know the truth. You're so damn desperate for sympathy. Enjoy it until more people figure out exactly how paranoid you are for no bloody reason.

Maybe you should step away from reading about all of those conspiracy theories. Occam's razor comes to mind.

DavidByron said...

Praise indeed for Supervixen:

hrh would wipe the floor with the lot of you if she had merely a few notches more discipline (she's the only debating adversary I give a wide berth).

Gonna have to keep an eye out for her!

James said...

You write an absolutely hysterically charged poor me diary (which no one in that thread even challenges the content of because they're all too busy kissing your butt) and you have the audacity to come here and call me a "dirtbag"?

Saw that. I think a couple folks correctly noted that such "poor me" diaries merely fan the flames. I can't see the value of such diaries outside of maybe some form of personal catharsis or some desire to escalate the conflict(s) further. Old Boo would do well to take his own advice and let it go.

catnip said...

Old Boo would do well to take his own advice and let it go.

That's not going to happen. He doesn't let go of his grudges. He seems to revel in them. I don't understand that. Oh well.

James said...

I'd pretty much gathered that, catnip. The guy can hold on to grudges over matters that are presumably settled and in which he's even offered a truce. Go figure.

catnip said...

Not only that, he expands them to include all sorts of other things in a some convoluted web of I don't know what. It gets tough to follow along...

DavidByron said...

If I might interject catnip....

I don't know anything about your fight with BooMan other than what I've read here at Mo Betta. However in determining whether this on-going dispute is just a grudge or something more substantial the determining question is whether there is still an on-going issue.

For example any time there's a banning you have a permanent on-going issue and a source of contention forever -- as peeder pointed out the other day. I assume you've been banned from BooMan's place?

Booman in the quote above says that his on-going contention is that you keep using his real (I assume) first name. So long as you keep deliberately re-opening that wound every time you refer to him I don't think you can call this a grudge on his part.

So it seems that the way things came about you both have an everlasting and ever renewable source of contention to justifiably complain about.

Therefore you don't have to assume that anyone involved is holding a grudge.

DavidByron said...

Catnip:
You do understand that most people think that repeating someone's personal details which they want kept secret is a serious breach of nettiquette, right?

I'm phrasing it that way because when Marisacat is cornered on this issue, and Supervixen too I think, they defend their actions by claiming that they don't think there's anything wrong with broadcasting people's personal details which they want kept secret. But they surely know that what they do hurts people, and that for that reason most people think it's immoral.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DavidByron said...

Supersoling requests her account be deleted at MLW

This seems a little odd to me. On the one hand it's a simple request and not a big deal I suppose, but you do wonder WHY someone would ask this.

On the other I tend to agree with the view that if a blog is a conversation then once your words go out there they are not yours alone anymore. Certainly it's not a big deal but generally....

For example if Supersoling came up to me in real life and said,
I've decided I am not your friend any more so please delete from your memory all the conversations we've had together.

It's not something I'd be inclined to agree to do even if it were possible.

The other thing is that this sort of requests sounds like it is motivated by a desire to sleight and shun a blog. The suspicion that this is indeed the motive can only be increased given the circumstances of animosity surrounding the request. Why would someone help someone else sleight their own blog?

The reason offered doesn't sound right.

Nor do I think it's right to keep my membership active and counting towards your overall numbers. Not saying that that would be your motivation. But this is important to me.

In any blog the active membership is a fraction of the number of user IDs for all sorts of reasons. Are you sure there isn't some other reason for your request?

supersoling said...

Thanks for confusing me with a woman. I'll take it as a compliment.
If someone like you walked up to me on the street spouting their hatred of women the way you do, I doubt I'd have reasonable response. I'd probably just knock your head off. Such is the difference between writing bullshit from the safety of your keyboard and risking the consequences of your hatred in real life.

I don't want to be associated with any blog/community/group/gang/cult/whatever that limits what can be said and who can say it. That's pretty simple enough, isn't it David?

Arcturus said...

I think a couple folks correctly noted that such "poor me" diaries merely fan the flames. I can't see the value of such diaries outside of maybe some form of personal catharsis or some desire to escalate the conflict(s) further.

It's the new business model to attract traffic. I hear the numbers are, umm, innerestin'

Nanette said...

Oy. What an ever widening mess.

I don't want to comment, Johnnie come lately fashion, on the latest blog mess - even with the interesting side trip into "why don't you come up and see me sometime" feminism... which some seem to think was just invented... but I did want to add my opinion to another matter that is also none of my business, that came up in the conversations. The MSOC posting here as administrator, thing.

Me, I would say a flat out "no". Nothing to do with MSOC herself, mind you... I think that should be the policy with any of the big box or scoop type community blog owners.

This was originally a space for people to come and be able to rant or mock the various blogs and their owners, or to commiserate with each other at this or that stupid, horrible, unfair, boneheaded thing that had occurred and so on. As well as to discuss blogs and the internet overall, and the co-opting of bloggers, political views, sell outs, whatever. Without fear of repercussion, at least here.

Having the BBB owners in the line up would change the dynamics of that, totally, I believe - causing some to decide that they are not able to speak out, even here.

Also, each one of these people has their own far more visible front page space where they can (and do) rant about their (current and former) commenters and/or diarists, or other bloggers, putting forward their views on the issues for the benefit of usually friendly audiences, and thus really have no need of a space such as this for that purpose.

Commenting, of course, is a different thing entirely, and that should be open to anyone wanting to present their position here, or to rebut what anyone says here about them.

scribe said...

Exactly my own feeling, Nanette. Looks to me from a little scanning around, the bigger blog owners already have plenty of good sized "stages" for their ego performances, and the right to promote all the "poor me" vs "big bad them" dramas they wish, to their own front pages. And when that's not quite enough, they can always drop in and toss a few stink bombs ny ol time they want.

ms_xeno said...

catnip:

...And all of this talk about "hate". I can't speak for anyone but myself but I sure don't "hate" anyone. What's the point of that?...

In my experience, the best way to get around lingering feelings of resentment is to avoid the spaces were the resented parties hang out. Unfortunately, this sometimes means avoiding people whose company I enjoy, along with those whose company I detest. But that's the breaks, I guess.

ms_xeno said...

Hah. And let me add that I love a good round of "poor me" from time to time. In my own space, they are usually behind a cut, with a warning that they are all-out pity parties, meant strictly for cathartic purposes. I find that works well. Nobody who hates pity parties can claim later that they were not warned what to expect. :D

catnip said...

Unfortunately, this sometimes means avoiding people whose company I enjoy,

Well, if I could think of one person who actually fits into that category in those spaces, it might be unfortunate. So, no separation anxiety here.

DavidByron said...

I'd probably just knock your head off.

Yes authoritarians tend to tolerate violence easily. Feminists tend to tolerate violence towards men easily.

I don't want to be associated with any blog/community/group/gang/cult/whatever that limits what can be said and who can say it. That's pretty simple enough, isn't it David?

And yet you just claimed you would murder someone in real life just for disagreeing with you. Call me deeply skeptical of your claim of liberality.

supersoling said...

Okay,
how about this David...
how about I just give you a black eye? Is that better now?
Sorry, I don't tolerate haters very well.
You know, I've been thinking. Why don't we just call this the he man woman haters club intead of MoBetta. You seem to have fouled the place beyond repair and Catnip is actually considering handing posting priveleges to a box blog owner.
Experiment over and failed.

DavidByron said...

You don't see any issue with accusing me of hate while you threaten me with violence?

supersoling said...

BTW,
I need a new Mommy....anyone? Hello.....Mama...Mama ???

My last Mommy, seems a hard, cold shutin who's incapable of nurturing me enough.

Mama....???

supersoling said...

I have an issue with your incessant attacks on the women here. You don't see any issue with calling yourself a liberal whilst attacking women?

DavidByron said...

By "attacking women" you mean disagreeing with at least one woman on at least one topic do you?

DavidByron said...

I wouldn't mind if Maryscott was given posting priviledges here. She keeps telling people I'm the only one she's banned from MLW so presumably I'd be the only one with anything to lose by allowing her here. Even Supervixen is still posting at MLW.

But can't someone be given posting rights without also being given admin / moderator rights?

Is it really a big deal? I don't see why she can't just post comments but perhaps she feels reluctant to post "off topic". I just treat every thread here as open by neccessity; some might be intimidated to do so.

You know the real restriction on bad moderators isn't technical; it's the feeling of the community.

I'd vouch for her. I'm sure she wouldn't use any admin options if you told her not to as a condition of entry.
----------------------------------

BTW I noticed another deleted comment up thread. This one was not one of mine amazingly so I assume there was an actual reason for it this time. What was that reason? Who deleted it?

supersoling said...

And for the record,
I'll never be ashamed of writng about my family, our struggles, or my intractions with people I've met from online groups no matter how ugly the protestations of a certain intolerant woman would demand the political blogs to be devoid of humanity.

supersoling said...

"She keeps telling people I'm the only one she's banned from MLW so presumably I'd be the only one with anything to lose by allowing her here"

Well of course let's make it more about you David, as if that might even be a possibility at this point. Als, the decision is out of my hands
The deleted comment was a reference to Catnip's name by an anonymous poster, so I assume Catnip deleted it.

catnip said...

You seem to have fouled the place beyond repair and Catnip is actually considering handing posting priveleges to a box blog owner.

Now wait a minute here. MSOC asked in an earlier thread about how one gets to post here. I told her I'd get back to her. We exchanged a few e-mails which were forwarded with her permission to the group and it's still under discussion. I can't singularly decide to hand over posting privileges to anyone. And, as I've said, I'm abstaining from the MSOC decision. None of this has anything to do with anyone else.

supersoling said...

If you all decide to give her the keys then I'll have no reason to continue commenting here. But like I said, it's none of my business now. The place is shit now anyway with Mr. he man woman hater here. So at this point it's no great loss.

supersoling said...

...and marisacat now has this place in her sights...take the next logical step....

catnip said...

What do you mean she "has this place in her sights"?

ms_xeno said...

I'm confused about that, too, catnip. I missed several threads on Mcat's page yesterday (very busy day. sorry). Also, I rarely read Kos or Booman or MLW. Whatever disagreement supersoling and Mcat are having is largely a mystery to me. I don't understand where it originated or what it's about.

supersoling said...

You figure it out. You're exceptional at weeding through comments, aren't you?

Here's a hint though, she used it while attempting to insult me and how well I fit here. Personally I think her personal insult prowess is grossly overrated.

Btw Catnip,
can you be my Mommy. Apparently I'm in desperate need of one. Who knew?! Maybe that's the answer to all my problems.

catnip said...

Check the spilt milk thread.

supersoling said...

Here's another clue. You can't disagree with her cuz she posseses a rather thin skin. And the more you try to reason with her, the more she behaves like a shark that smells blood in the water. Who knew!?

I made rude and baseless remark to her after that, which required an apology. End of that story. No big deal to me. I certainly won't be writing about it on my blog for days on end. See, I'm not into quantity, only quality LOL

catnip said...

Here's a hint though, she used it while attempting to insult me and how well I fit here.

1) I didn't see it as having anything to do with "here". As in MoBetta? How did that figure into it?
2) She used a "/snark" tag. The whole thing was about the objection you had to mcat bringing up MSOC's kid. So, from what I could gather, when LG brought up the issue of sexuality a la pole dancing, mcat snarked about whether that should be a topic of discussion either (since, I think she was making the point, that was a personal issue too).
3) Beyond that, I think she was basically saying "good luck" in getting any kind of advice for your kidlets re:sexuality issues since LG whipped out her feminist textbooks and theories. That seemed to be a pointless exercise at that point. (Right?)

(And then there was the cat food delivery thing which, well you know how things like that go...)

Btw Catnip,
can you be my Mommy. Apparently I'm in desperate need of one. Who knew?! Maybe that's the answer to all my problems.


Are you kidding me? I'm already somebody's mother and that's more than enough for me. :)

(As for advice for the kidlets, you're not going to get it from women who would rather cite theory than practical solutions - and there are no easy answers.)

Geez there are a lot of subdramas going on. You practically need a program to keep track of them all.

catnip said...

And I'm having a nap...

ms_xeno said...

supersoling:

You figure it out. You're exceptional at weeding through comments, aren't you?

????

Aaaaanyway, if I read the spilled milk thread over there correctly, the whole dust-up started because you objected to Mcat mentioning that MSOC has kids.

Uhhh... if that's correct, I don't really understand why. Has MSOC ever made a secret of the fact that she has kids ?

Also, Mcat and I disagree about a number of things. I don't find her any more thin-skinned than any other blogger out there who is quite blunt about the "My Blog, My Rules" philosophy. Believe me, there is stuff I wouldn't countenance in my own home turf that others would have no problem with. But I try to have a "when in Rome" attitude elsewhere. It just seems to make more sense.

Henry Louis said...

I consider myself an enemy of David Byron, but what can I say, once in awhile he speaks the truth:

f it were someone else's blog and I merely a member among members, I'd have cried "Foul" a lot sooner than The Blogging Curmudgeon and the few others who had the temerity to call me on it.

That's terribly gratifying speaking as the person who was the first to cry foul.

I'm sure the Curmudgeon is also terribly gratified and yet for some reason he's the one on the way out instead of Armando.


Well, yes, I do find it most curious that while MSOC lauded me in a front page post for having the "temerity" to protest the elevation of Armando to the status of an endangered species on MLW, with special privileges not enjoyed by us ordinary mortals, she then allowed Armando to abuse troll ratings (a fact pointed out by Curmudgette), and to shove me out the door with her foot halfway up my ass.

No, I'm not banned from MyLeftWing--because I left voluntarily. But MSOC made it quite clear to me that if I persisted in arguing with The Cuban Heel, I WOULD be suspended/banned. The abject example of hrh, who was banned for arguing with Armando, was not lost on me.

MSOC's new policy of no vile personal insults also got shown to be an absolute fraud when another of her retainers, Jake's Guilt, called me "CurmuDouchebag" the yesterday. Bringing no rebuke and no suspension for Jake's Guilt.

Now, ordinarily I'd just ignore Jake's Guilt or else fly in and cut him to ribbons (it's not hard, really, since his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor, if you know what I mean). But then I'd be in trouble for--you guessed it!--violating the no personal insults rule.

I'm not a fan of unilateral disarmament. MSOC's reply to an email I sent to her protesting the scurrilous actions of Jake's Guilt and Armando brought a most discouraging response.

Well, that was the briefest "new era of civility" on record, I do believe.

The blogs--all of them--have become vile cesspools of bullies. DailyKos has so many I won't even list them here. Now MLW has Armando, Jake's Guilt, and Louisianagirl, who promised Armando that anybody who crossed him would be "taken care of" (why do all these people talk like they're in B-movies about the Mafia?). Booman Tribune has its thugs, too, and I shouldn't be surprised if Armando himself makes an appearance over there quite soon.

We haven't hit bottom yet on these blogs. Not even close. The murky, messy bottom is a LONG ways off. Lord of the Flies will look like a Club Med resort compared to this.

Final note:

The Curmudgette had the absolute best response to Armando's abuse of troll ratings on MyLeftWing:


Very good, then. (6.66 / 3)
Why don't you take it up with Maryscott. Find out from where the line is exactly that you can sidle up to it at your pleasure. Why do I think you'll be working in low ratings on this site like a painter works in oils?

Go ahead. Troll rate away. I expected no different when I raised the issue. Knock yourself out.

"If you can't say anything good about someone, sit right here by me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
by: Curmudgette @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:01:32 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply | ]

DavidByron said...

can you be my Mommy. Apparently I'm in desperate need of one. Who knew?!

Haven't been down to the sewer today so I didn't read that but it sounds like Marisacat's standard insult to anyone with a penis. I guess the real insult is supposed to be that she can't be bothered to use any original material on a mere penised person.

I've seen her use that line on about half a dozen people in just the last few weeks.

Kudos for telling M. she crossed the line by the way. Bearding the dragon in her lair as it were ;)
---------------------------------

Catnip's name is XXXX?

I can see the irony in her using Booman's first name and pretending it was no big deal then reacting (if it was her) angrily when some anonymous commenter posts her name..... OTOH it could easily have been someone else very properly deleting that comment.

But this really goes back to the discussion about Catnip's power-over. Outing people's details is a big deal because some nasty nasty people --- even nastier than Marisacat's ladies --- have been known to use that data to get people fired or otherwise cause real harm in the real world.

But Catnip is bullet proof isn't she? She has no employer. She can't lose her income or her house. She probably doesn't have a partner who can get fired either. There's really nothing anyone could do against her. She may have less power out there but in here she's one of the ones with power --- and she uses it against those weaker than herself.

spider said...

Well, once again DB you make assumptions without having any facts to back up your tirades.

Kinda hard to "out" someone who freely uses his real name.

supersoling said...

ms_xeno,
that comment wasn't directed at you.
I didn't object to merely mentioning she had kids, but making assumptions about her husband and making unqualified assessments about what is need. If someone brings up their own kids and family that's one thing, but it's my opinion that they're off limits as thread fodder. But you'de have thought I was John Ashcroft covering the marble breast, for dissenting. Jeez.

I'll not be losing any sleep over it though, nor frontpaging it and discussing it for days to pump my numbers.
I'm trying to figure out what BooMan and Marisacat would do without one another. Thread tank city is my guess.

DavidByron said...

Curmudgeon:
I consider myself an enemy of David Byron, but what can I say, once in awhile he speaks the truth

Cool! I am the enemy of Curmudgeon. Uh... but we've never actually ever met before have we? Did I miss the big ceremony? Aren't you meant to say something like,

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die.

You always seemed like one of the best people at MLW to me. I assume this is not a political disagreement then. So what did I do? Step on you in a previous incarnation?

But back to gossiping about Maryscott!

Now, ordinarily I'd just ignore Jake's Guilt or else fly in and cut him to ribbons (it's not hard, really, since his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor, if you know what I mean)

Short dude?

But then I'd be in trouble for--you guessed it!--violating the no personal insults rule.

What you need is to gather all the individuals and odd balls over there into a single fighting force. Like the Magnificent Seven. Then you all go full "concern" attack. You know the sort of thing. Point out every slightest little insult anywhere on the board, but never when it's directed at you yourself. make snide comments that aren't actually flame technically. Fight fire with fire.

I'm actually surprised what a prick Armando is being over all this. Maybe I've misread him all this time but he always struck me as an honest asshole you know? I've never had any issue with him. But just recently his behaviour at MLW has made him a dishonest asshole. It's a bit creepy. What happened to the real Armando? The guy who would flame you to your face instead of post a set of silly rules and whine and bitch to the moderator while posting zero ratings all over the place and insisting "the rules" say it's ok. What's with this passive aggressive Armando?

Find out from where the line is exactly that you can sidle up to it at your pleasure.

Yup.
And when is Maryscott going to learn to quit meddling with everyone who posts on her site. How could any flame war between Armando and HRH possibly have been worse than what actually happened? I can't believe that Armando is happy with this charade either. I know I'd rather be banned. Guess that's why I was .......

ms_xeno said...

supersoling, is it your opinion that Mcat shot first in the ongoing tete-a-tete with MSOC, or Booman, for that matter. My understanding is that she had come in for plenty of personal attacks from them at other times, in other places. So did they obey the Marquis of Queensbury rules all that time and make no unkind aspersions at all regarding her family members ?

I have to say that given what I know of standard op procedure over much of the internet, I would be greatly surprised if that were the case.

Mcat, I presume, has never threatened MSOC or anyone related to her. I'll level with you: I don't enjoy having insults hurled at me online, or aspersions being cast about my loved ones. But in general I am able to differentiate between a rude personal remark and a bona-fide threat. It sounds to me like MSOC and Booman routinely carry on as if they do not know the difference. Or have I missed something ?

DavidByron said...

My god I just accidentally outed henry louis as Curmudgeon!

Kinda hard to "out" someone who freely uses his real name.

Yeah sure it's all a bit stupid. Sure. Two minutes with Google etc etc. I get it. But the bottom line is there is no reason to not respect someone's wishes of "anonymity" even if they were/are foolish enough to have let their secret identity slip a bit ... quite a lot in this case apparently.

Actually that one really does make his complaint look a bit stupid. I need to find a better quality of dumbass to defend......

But I refuse to give up on the principle here!!! Take catnip for example: did Mr/Ms Anonymous get her first name from the Magic 8-Ball? Presumably catnip posted her real name somewhere at some point. So she screwed up too. Does that mean that she's fair game?

Booman probably ought to explain why his name's up there but there may be a good reason for it. Maybe he thought that he had to give his real name to that company for whatever reason. At any rate the thing is the sort of person who can Google your name in two minutes and the sort of person who harasses you at work or whatever (ie genuine stalkers) ... they are not necessarily the same.

supersoling said...

I've never seen anyone attack her family, but I'm sure it's happened plenty of times, judging what I've seen thrown at her from dKos and BT and MLW, among others. But I'm only speaking specifically about that which was said yesterday. And I mentioned that I see it as taking a higher road. But I leveled no dictate at her. I opposed her choice, not her right. There's a big difference.

When I bailed at BT 2 months ago, part of the reason was because BooMan front paged the non outing of Delaware Dem by Marisacat and in doing so condoned DD calling Marisacat a cunt, a bitch and a whore. I protested that on my way out the door. Whatever. I would protest anyone getting that treatment. It wasn't a specific desire to back her up.

I don't think I said anywhere that Marisacat was threatening anyone and I don't believe she is, so I don't know why you bring that up. It was more a general disagreement with talking about families, most especially the kids.

ms_xeno said...

supersoling, I mentioned the difference between a rude aspersion, or insult, if you prefer, and a threat because:

I believe you mentioned in the context of your disagreement with Mcat about language that you personally feel very protective of your family, specifically your children. So I wondered if there was some confusion there over the difference between an insult and a thread.

I agree that it would be great if we could all take the higher ground in dealing with our opponents. But I've come to accept the fact that it rarely happens. Sometimes it's even counterproductive, depending on the circumstances. I say this from experience, but that's meta for another day.

supersoling said...

My protectiveness of my children influences my hope that any children don't become the object of speculation. Unfortunately anyone who posts info about their kids is risking having their situations discussed. I've done it, but I'm not sorry for doing it. Nor does seeking advice among online friends on political sites make me a drama queen. It just makes me a concerned parent who uses good resources. Marisacat sees it as diverting attention away from political tasks and needs, intentionally, is how I percieve her charge, therby probably marking my future as a political operative LOL It's hysterical really. I need to get some sleep though befcause I have a big day tomorrow, searching for a new Mommy and all ! Jesus LOL

And with that,
good night.

DavidByron said...

Is this a parody? or are they really accusing Meteor Blades of being "a paid informant to the FBI" now?

James said...

Experiment over and failed.

Rumors of the "experiment's" demise are very premature.

ms_xeno said...

supersoling:

...Unfortunately anyone who posts info about their kids is risking having their situations discussed...

Which, to be honest, is what I've been thinking regarding MSOC. If she brings up her kids herself, she has no control over how others imagine her online persona might spill over or detract from her parenting skills. Mcat has, in fact, mentioned this in regard to more than one Kos blogger, I believe.

Also, I love a good advice thread, but would probably be just as grumpy as Mcat aparently is if political threads were constantly mutating into threads about personal drama. Again, when in Rome... time and place for everything... add the cliche' of your choice... etc.

Henry Louis said...

I found it interesting that MSOC made it quite clear that the new rules were made to protect Armando, except that they were then not made to protect Armando, but made for the protection of one and all...

And then showed that her original meaning (Armando is a Very Important Blogger and a Protected Species) when she deleted all comments challenging his presence on MyLeftWing (there were over two dozen), suspended Miss Devore and banned hrh for arguing with Armando, and allowed Armando to blatantly abuse the MLW ratings system.

I've emailed MSOC about what's happening with MLW a few times, but she's made three things quite plain, both in her emails and via her actions on MyLeftWing:

1. Armando is there to stay (until he gets in a snit and leaves, which he will eventually do);
2. There are Special Rules for Special People, and Armando is the Most Special Person of all;
3. Maryscott O'Connor will deny the reality of Special Rules for Special People to her dying breath.

I always liked the fact that MSOC was willing to admit error and to attempt to correct it. It's not easy herding cats, and one must have some sympathy for the blog owners in their thankless task. But she has this huge blind spot regarding Armando and there's nothing to do but sit back and watch the show.

It's a hell of a toboggan ride.

Henry Louis said...

I feel supremely uncomfortable with anybody discussing another person's children, spouse, or partner.

However, we DO criticise Jenna and Barbara Bush, aka "the Bush twins", for their hard-partying ways while less fortunate peers fight and die in Iraq in a war their Daddy started. And the vice-president's lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney, has also been fodder on the blogs.

However, the Bush twins and Mary Cheney are adults. Maryscott O'Connor's son is only seven years old. I don't care if she brings him up and I don't care if she "uses" her son and husband the way Nixon used his children's dog, Checkers (Marisacat's analogy, not mine). The child is seven years old and it is just wrong to drag him into this ugly fight.

I never mention my own family in any of my blogging, and with good reason. If somebody criticised my own parenting, or my relationship with my partner, and especially if they mentioned my partner or child by name, I'd be fighting mad.

That doesn't mean that Maryscott O'Connor's husband and son are "fair game" because SHE mentioned them first. Her husband and son are off-limits.

I know Marisacat is unapologetic on this topic, and I don't expect her to experience an epiphany that criticising Maryscott O'Connor as a parent or wife is wrong, but that's just what is: wrong. It's indecent. Anyone who can't see that is blinded by animosity.

supersoling said...

" Again, when in Rome... time and place for everything"

It was part of the culture there, at BT anyway. I was hardly the first or last. Some of the best writing on rape you'll ever find, was written on that site. There were a broad cross section of people posting there and we learned from and listened to each other. I don't arbitrarily post forbidden subjects that don't fit with a blogs culture. So the Rome analogy isn't accurate.

Anyway,
I'm done with this subject.

As far as kids go, she did it first and is fair game argument is bullshit. So many mouths...so little compassion.

And I'm done with that subject now too.

Peace

DavidByron said...

Hmmm. Remember.... ok you can't remember because you were not there, but back in the first few weeks of MLW Maryscott had given me special status of a sort. She never claimed to be a friend of mine and we've never met but she did feel that because of the known animosity towards me of various posters that she needed to proclaim that I was "not a troll".

So there's a precedent for her doing this which is NOT based on bias either as a friend or towards a supposed "big shot" blogger since I was neither, but upon her concept of fairness to someone she sees under attack from a lot of others (or else just anticipating conflict).

Of course that feeling left her pretty quickly and I was banned as "a troll" within weeks.

Her protection of Armando certainly goes beyond telling people they shouldn't zero rate him just for commenting but initially she may have had something like that in mind; merely attempting to difuse ahead of time some of the animosity.

Then when people started to complain about the new rule just for Armando she of course had to admit that such a rule should logically apply to everyone. Again this was likely sincere on her part. Now of course such a rule is incredibly meddlesome. You just can't have a rule saying don't attack anyone because people do it all the time. she really shot herself in the foot with her desire to meddle all the time.

However as to why she invited Armando over to begin with I think there was bias in that. Although there are good reasons to invite Armando to post they are not so good that it's worth threatening and banning / suspending another three or four members.

It was fine to say "I know Armando has history but can we just move on please?"

It was not fine to say "or else I'll ban people".

I think it became about Maryscott at that point. It became about people "not respecting her auithority" and that just cascades because then you get HRH being banned / suspended and not respecting Maryscott enough to stay banned as it were. Coming back in various other accounts. maryscott's reaction to that could have been a complete meltdown with a second round of mass bannings of which she would likely have eventually realized needed to be reversed as happened with the first mass banning. But she didn't go there quite.

Armando I think may have been prepared to be on best behaviour to begin with and he didn't start it but he also didn't do anything to not carry it on. With his special protection that had the effect of baiting. now he's being passive aggressive. Bleh.

Oh well. You should probably just go back there and act like nothing happened.

Arcturus said...

wow super, that's quote the manly display of macho - I'm quite impressed! I do hope you realize tho, that that sort of violent posturing goes much better over at bmt w/ the martin/soj crew

supersoling said...

Take it back to Marisa, Arcturus, and chew on it for a few days.

Arcturus said...

yanno, super, I'm comfy there & here as well in - what's yr attraction to participating in an "Experiment over and failed"

catnip said...

That doesn't mean that Maryscott O'Connor's husband and son are "fair game" because SHE mentioned them first. Her husband and son are off-limits.

That "fair game" quote of mine has been met with hysterics because of its Novak/Plame context. Anyone who actually read my entire comment at mcat's would know that I said I cringed at how WaPo wrote about her family situation. I don't have the right to cringe at that?

And I was also clear that once she allowed her family to be written about, she (nor anyone else) should be surprised that the characterization in a national newspaper would become a topic of discussion. Some people seem to think that it should just have been ignored because it was sacrosanct. Sorry, I don't feel that way. It was a disturbing depiction and I'm not going to sit back and STFU about that because others might be uncomfortable. I did not cross the line but it's certainly been characterized that way by Booman and others.

Afaic, if it's in the public square, it is fair game. If you don't want it to be in the public square, don't put it there.

This discussion parallels the ridiculous non-outing excuses ie. even though the info is on the internets, no one has a right to actually talk about it. Here's the deal, if you put it on the internets (and if you link to it yourself), expect it to come up - somewhere, sometime. That's just reality. If people have things to keep private, don't publish them. That's pretty darn simple. This "thou shalt not use Google or comment on newspaper stories" argument is tripe. And if someone is so damn worried about their career, they ought to be damn careful about what they place online. I've been on the tubes for 14 years and that's the way it's always been.

Whatever happened to personal responsibilty?

catnip said...

And, btw, the fact that a number of us have now been compared to torturers, warmongers and mass murderers should raise a few eyebrows, one would think. Who goes to those lengths to demonize people they're uncomfortable with? That's absolutely pathetic.

scribe said...

Who? Folks who don't have very highly developed communication skills, for one thing. Those who want to fling crap on others rather than look down and see they're standing in a pile of it. People who do it because to gain favor with some higher up who is doing it. Because everybody else is and they want to feel part of the pack. Because it's so safe to do it from behind a screen name. Because it feels good at the time. I could go on and on and on!
:)

DavidByron said...

This "thou shalt not use Google or comment on newspaper stories" argument is tripe. And if someone is so damn worried about their career, they ought to be damn careful about what they place online. I've been on the tubes for 14 years and that's the way it's always been.

So how come someone was able to post your real first name here? And how come you (or whoever) saw fit to delete that comment?

catnip said...

This is the only response any of your posts are going to get from me db.

I use my first name in my e-mails. The person who posted it here misspelled it, incidentally, which probably means a) they're illiterate or b) they heard my name from someone else. I'm an admin here. I reserve the right to delete posts with personal inofrmation - just as I did last week when someone posted MilitaryTracy's name in an old thread, btw.

There is no association between my blog, my nickname and my real name anywhere on the internet - none that I've ever posted, at least.

Now move on and get on with your trolling.

ms_xeno said...

...Afaic, if it's in the public square, it is fair game. If you don't want it to be in the public square, don't put it there...

Thank You, catnip !!

[passes bag of cheez-filled mini-crackers.]

Henry Louis said...

Catnip:

If you visit Booman Tribune, you'll see that I was the first person to call "bullshit" on Meteor Blade's literal equation of Booman's critics with the Columbine High mass murderers. You read that diary and you know damn well what I wrote.

Just as I am now calling "bullshit" on Marisacat's criticising MSOC's family relationships, and especially the manner in which she and her husband are raising their young son.

It's called "common decency", except it apparently isn't so "common", at least not on the Internets.

I cringed when Rush Limbaugh made fun of a 12-year-old child named Chelsea Clinton, calling her "the White House dog". Striking at a child because you don't like the politics or personalities of her parents is pretty damned low.

So Marisacat is now adopting Rush's tactics?

MSOC "allowed" the Washington Post to portray her son's reaction to her in a certain light? How, precisely, was MSOC supposed to "disallow" the reporter's portrayal? MSOC did not have editorial control over what was written; she merely sat for an interview. None of us were in the room when that interview was given, and we have only the reporter's word for how MSOC's son reacted. To me, it's obvious from the first sentence of the article that the reporter had an axe to grind: "In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor...." It was a biased piece for the most part (unsurprising, given the right-wing skew the Washington Post has taken on since its Woodward and Bernstein days).

You must be unfamiliar with children if you think a six year old child doesn't change his moods--OFTEN. A child can be happily playing one moment and appear spooked the next. Happens all the time--especially when there's a strange man in the room asking the child's mother questions and observing her every move.

Let's just be honest, Catnip: Marisacat wants to flay MSOC for some reason I don't understand, and is willing to use any tactic--including going for MSOC's most vulnerable spot, her child. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Miss America, but it's still just bacon on four legs.

It's a despicable, nasty, reprehensible tactic that turns my stomach.

All of you--Booman, Meteor Blades, Marisacat, and anybody else who thinks it's OK to use these nasty tatics--need to stop and think about what the hell you are doing, not only to others but to yourselves.

If somebody criticises me, they're no better than murderers?

If somebody criticises me, I can attack their child?

I don't know what the original grievances were in this feud, but whatever they were, there is no justification for the wild charges, counter-charges, and outright character smears that are taking place on ALL sides.

None of you have come off very well in this, you know, and some worse than others. But I've lost a lot of respect for a lot of people in this, and I suspect a lot of silent onlookers have taken note--and turned their heads away.

To many of the participants in this ongoing Marisacat-MSOC-Booman feud, there now seems to be nothing important except sticking yet another knife in one's opponent. There are no rules and nothing is out of bounds.

I'm really surprised at you, Catnip. I always knew Booman had a paranoid side that was easy to bring out--saw it a long time ago, in fact--but I thought you had a level head and knew that there are certain places you just don't go in an argument. Going after somebody's family, especially somebody's child, is one of those places.

But that's what Marisacat has done.

Calling somebody a soulmate of the Columbine killers just because they disagree with you, is another one of those places.

But that's what Meteor Blades has done.

I wash my hands of all of you.

catnip said...

If you visit Booman Tribune, you'll see that I was the first person to call "bullshit" on Meteor Blade's literal equation of Booman's critics with the Columbine High mass murderers. You read that diary and you know damn well what I wrote.

And you're mad at me because of that why? ? Did I say anything about you and that issue? No.

So Marisacat is now adopting Rush's tactics?

Did she mock MSOC's son? No.

Perhaps you missed the part where MSOC wrote about how proud she was of that WaPo piece? I don't have a link. Use google. And, fyi, if I allowed a reporter into my home in which I had a small child, I would expect that reporter to do what he's there to do: report. That's what happened. That's not my fault.

You must be unfamiliar with children if you think a six year old child doesn't change his moods--OFTEN.

I'm a grandmother. Get stuffed.

I'm really surprised at you, Catnip. I always knew Booman had a paranoid side that was easy to bring out--saw it a long time ago, in fact--but I thought you had a level head and knew that there are certain places you just don't go in an argument. Going after somebody's family, especially somebody's child, is one of those places.

I did not go there. Do you honestly think MSOC would have lifted my suspension at her blog if she felt I had crossed the line? No way in hell.

You seem to think you know me. Well, guess what? MSOC knows me a helluva lot better than you do so why should I care what you think of me?

As for the rest of your complaints, take them up with the people involved - although now that you've acted like an ass at mcat's, that's not an option for you, is it?

You anger with me is sorely misdirected.

You need to wash your hands. They're obviously soiled.

catnip said...

I see you also deleted your comments at Curmudgette's blog. What's the problem? Are you ashamed of what you wrote? Are your comments here set to disappear too?

Henry Louis said...

Hm, I thought I'd observed you long enough at Booman Tribune to mark you as a more or less reasonable sort, and a person who was not unkind.

You're right, I don't know you at all, and I never did.

Here's the short version of what I wrote, Catnip:

You've gone over the line. Maryscott O'Connor's son is your business, how, exactly?

That's right. It isn't. No more than your grandchildren are my business.

How would you know I acted like an ass at Marisacat's blog? That would distinguish me from the other people how, exactly?

I don't know what sparked this obsessional hatred, but it's clear that people all around just want somebody to argue with.

Begone, Catnip. I will speak with you no longer. Say whatever you like to me, or about me, I will not respond. You do not exist to me any longer. Nor do any of the others at Marisacat's blog. I will pay no further attention to any of you.

Hm, if a drama queen pitches a fit in the forest and has no audience, does she still exist?

catnip said...

Begone, Catnip. I will speak with you no longer.

LMAO

My my you think highly of yourself. This is one of my blogs, you self-important ass.

James said...

Yup, Henry - catnip is one of the folks who runs this joint. If you don't like the company, leave. We even have some nice bouncers who will show you the way out. Later gator!

catnip said...

"Begone"

lol...I'll still be laughing about that one tomorrow.

Seems there have been a few people lately who would like to see some of us disappeared...or...my goodness!..."shunned".

James said...

Hell, I figured terms like "begone" went out of style after Romanticism ran out of steam a couple centuries back. Who knew we had the ghosts of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron in our midst. ;-)

catnip said...

It's kind of like "Out damned spot!" or "Get thee to a nunnery!". :)

Maybe if he rewrote it in Olde English, it might sound better...?

Maryscott OConnor said...

Regarding my inquiry about posting here:

I hadn't considered the issue of my being a "BBB" and already having my own rather substantial forum. You're absolutely right, Nanette -- it would be unseemly for me to have posting privileges here.

I withdraw my inquiry.


As to this stuff about my family -- my son, in particular. I am grateful to Supersoling and Curmudgeon for the stance they have taken; it speaks well of them.

As for myself, I am not harmed by words. They hurt my feelings, to be ssure, but they cause me no actual harm, nor my son, nor my husband. Catnip, you persist in misinterpeting that WaPo piece, but I doubt you will be dissuaded from it. I maintain to this day that the reporter observed and wrote his observations dispassionately and without bias. He misinterpreted my son's reaction in one instance, and unfortunately it seemed to portray my relationship with my son in a bad light. C'est la vie. I am secure in my relationship with my son. In point of fact, my son was shy about the presence of a strange man and his reaction had much more to do with that than anything else.

As for this business about Armando and the bannings and deletions at MLW; I mismanaged the situation abominably. It has since been corrected.

There seems to be an expectation of blog proprietors that they be somehow imbued with a preternatual ability to manage large numbers of people posting large numbers of comments and essays, to corral these people and their temperaments and ensure a sort of stability and permanent peace among them all the likes of which no group of humans has ever before achieved.

That expectation is infectious, to say the least -- it spreads to the proprietors themselves. I find myself opten thinking and behaving, often nunconsciously, as if OUGHT to know how to achieve the aforementioned permanent peace. Hence the "meddling," as DB puts it. THere may be a fine line between management and meddling, but oftentimes it id downright invisible.

It's definitely a challenge, running a community blog. Not for the thinsknned nor faint of heart. Oddly, I am both, How I have managed to sustain myself in the role for almost 2 years is a mystery...

catnip said...

Catnip, you persist in misinterpeting that WaPo piece, but I doubt you will be dissuaded from it. I maintain to this day that the reporter observed and wrote his observations dispassionately and without bias. He misinterpreted my son's reaction in one instance, and unfortunately it seemed to portray my relationship with my son in a bad light.

MSOC,

I obviously did not misinterpret the WaPo depiction because I agree that it did show your relationship with your son in a bad light. That's what I've said all along but that's not the point of peoples' objections to what I've said. They've decried me for commenting on it at all, even though it was in a major newspaper. That was my point - that they felt I had no right to say anything because your family is a personal matter and that it was therefore taboo to comment about what was written in that article. I disagreed and now I've been demonized for it. But then what should I expect from people like Booman who hold grudges forever like he's in junior high? He'll obviously use anything against me - no matter how wrong he is - while doing whatever he can to turn others against me as well. It's all petty and juvenile. My words stand for themselves.

supersoling said...

Catnip,
are your opinions, feelings, actions, to be judged by who you co habitate with, who you blog with, where you blog now, or once blogged? Would it be fair to make a judgement upon you based on those criteria? Would you not cry foul if someone labeled you as "people like BooMan" because you once blogged and/or commented at his site? Maybe even occasionally agreed with him?
No, it wouldn't be fair. And it would pigeonhole you as an independent, thinking person. Then why do make the charge that those who see the use of a child as a weapon against someone you disagree with as "people like BooMan"? And I'm not talking about your rights. I'm talking about your moral foundation and sense of right and wrong.

Let me ask you this. How would you feel if someone who persists in making attacks on you, whether justified or not, decided to take a picture, say, a picture of a woman and her "little Grand Herb", a picture you freely posted on the internet, that was saved to someone's hardrive, and used it to make judgements about your fitness to be a Grandmother? Comments and assaults that would be stored in search engines and caches. Comments that might pop up one day when that Grand herb was showing her friends or teacher from the school computer? Would it be cool with you that that Grand Herb be hurt and embarrassed by those comments because someone felt it was their right to use it? That it was "fair game" because Grandma was trusting enough to post it? Or, as it turns out, ignorant and naive enough to post it. Would it be okay if that child one day stumbled across a post by someone, for all to see, that labeled that Grandmother a "dirtbag"?

Free speech comes with responsibilities. When children are involved, those responsibilities also require, as far as I'm concerned, compassion and moral grounding.

Something that you seem to be sorely lacking, in your attempts to fit in with your friends. Anyone who says that children are fair game is flirting awefully close with dirtbabhood.

And now, because this is my last ever comment at this cesspool of a blog, I owe you a hearty "Fuck You Then".

catnip said...

Then why do make the charge that those who see the use of a child as a weapon against someone you disagree with as "people like BooMan"?

Because it was Booman I was talking about. Not that difficult to figure out in the context there, super.

"But then what should I expect from people like Booman who hold grudges forever like he's in junior high?"

And did I make one cooment about MSOC's "fitness" to be a mother? NO.

Free speech comes with responsibilities.

It definitely does and the number one responsibility is to get your facts straight before you speak.

Anyone who says that children are fair game is flirting awefully close with dirtbabhood.

I didn't say that but I will say this again to you: fuck you. And get your head out of your ass while you're at it.

supersoling said...

You said it all right. Just above. Fair game because MSOC posted about her kid. Stick with the fucking facts for once. And Ms Xeno thanked you for it. You have no principles.

You have no problem with DD's info being out. Neither do I, for the record. But you also defended Armando's supposed outing. Why? Because it was the soup djour for Catnip, that's why. What's the matter little nip? Having trouble fitting in? As ever? Yeah....
Biggest drama queen to ever hit the nets. Who else posts their own It's my Birthday diary? No one I know...kno one with any class. Fits your MO. Classless.
And like I said, no principles. None.

Go fuck yourself, if you can stand it.

catnip said...

Oh get stuffed. I'm dealing with fucking death threats today and you somehow think your opinion of me means anything or is even important?

You try to insult me because I posted a BIRTHDAY diary on my own website? What kind of crack are you on??

Just keep posting though. You'll continue to show just how clueless you are. No skin off my back.

HAND

supersoling said...

Thanks for the hand, fake sistah,
you posted it on BT, with a picture of you and "Grand Herb". Like I said, get your facts straight. It's not that hard to do really. Why did you suck up to and defend Armando during his faux outing? Answer the fucking question.

Death threats? Drama queen.....

catnip said...

death threats.

But you go right ahead and spin that too. I have police to get in touch with now.

supersoling said...

Somebody call a WHAAAAMBULANCE

It sucks when you have to suffer the consequences of what you post on the internet, especially if it's your kids, doesn't it 'nip?

When your through dissembling, perhaps you could answer the fucking question....liar.

catnip said...

I owe you absolutely nothing, super. Deal with it. Afaic, your posts here are now just as irrelevant as Byron's and will not be responded to.

supersoling said...

I figured you'de take the only way out that you could. Run. David Byron? Irrelevent? Maybe you should check with all the other people here who continue to encourage his poststing here by replying in kind. David Byron IS MoBetta now. Stop bringing OG&P talking points over here 'NIP.

James said...

So, how's that last post going, super?

supersoling said...

When I get to it, I'll let you know...again. Is that sufficient? Otherwise, delete the comments.

Miss Devore said...

this is too long to read.

I'll vote for whoever lands the triple axel.

catnip said...

How do we know you're not the French judge?

ms_xeno said...

...Who else posts their own It's My Birthday diary?...

I did. Lots of people I know do. We also blog about our pets, our taste in clothing, various recreational (and not so recreational) drugs, hangnails, weird people at our jobs, and two hard-boiled eggs.

[honk]

Make that three hard-boiled eggs.

We feel dreadful at missing your memo about how out of bounds that is. Truly, truly dreadful.

Whatever MSOC partakes of on a regular basis before blogging appears to be very popular. Or is it contagious ? Two weeks ago, supersoling, you seemed like just an average, easygoing face around these parts. Now there is (in the words of Chekhov) a spring snapped in your brain. Disappointing to see, I gotta' say.