Thursday, March 08, 2007

Open Thread

You know what to do.

95 comments:

James said...

An open thread is a terrible thing to waste.

alohaleezy said...

Now this is comical. BooMan , on his FP is advocating this guy doesn't go to jail for weapons sales because he went to high school with him? See, he really does think the rules should apply to everyone else but his friends. People are still listening to this guy? Lots of commenters took him to task for it though.

How does one post a flippin link over here? Sorry, when in the comment section I cannot get the copy/paste funtion to work. How come?

The title is "Bad News".

DavidByron said...

It seems like all the threads are "open".

This is funny. Supervixen aka "hrh" thinks she was banned by BooMan which is filling her with righteous indignation (later on she finds out she wasn't banned, although of course she never apologises to BooMan for what turned out to be false accusations based on a mistake). That's not the funny part.

The funny part is where she is so incensed at BooMan for blocking her that she says to pyrrho:

Pyrrho, I was about to respond to your comment when I was banned. You can discuss this issue with me at Supervixens. I’ll release your previous comments from moderation so you can speak freely.

I just love the unintended humour at Marisacat's place. The other day they were all geting on their high righteous horses because one of their official enemies had gone diving into someone's past by SIX MONTHS to drag up something. Imagine that! Someone delving into someone else's not-at-all private life to get a comment. This was in the same thread that one of them dived into my past by SEVEN YEARS to make personal comments about my wife.

And unlike in my case I think it really is unintended humour. I usually do try to be funny. Pretty sure supervixen wasn't. Well known fact that feminists don't have a sense of humour, except for catnip of course. She is such a kidder.

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

Get a life. God, it's like that imsessant little nat in a room that you just can't seem to swat away. Go hug your wife or something.

DavidByron said...

Now, now, now. Annonymous comments are not allowed here.

Wait... was that all just an excuse to gag someone you all didn't like? Will anonymous comments attacking the outsider instead of attacking the inner circle be welcomed instead of being banned?

Surely not. Not on a board with such towering integrity as this.

ms_xeno said...

DB is married to a series of tubes. Awkward to hug, Methinks.

canberra boy said...

Huh, ms xeno?

canberra boy said...

I have deleted a comment which I regarded as sexual harassment of another commenter.

ms_xeno said...

Sorry, canberra boy. Just one of my li'l jokes.

Nice to meet you, BTW. Don't think we've been formerly introduced...

scribe said...

Seems there are some folks who, no matter what room they wander into, are driven by a compulsion to say or to do something that just screams "HEY!! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

It's like some folks need to make everything "about them" as much as possible, whatever it takes.

Frankly, DB, that's what your behaviors here look like to me, as someone who has little to no knowledge of you before meeting you here.

Or are you just a shit-stirrer by choice because it's fun?

ms_xeno said...

scribe, you'll enhance the often-elusive "fun" element of King Davy's operatic contortions if you employ such handy tools as this one.

ms_xeno said...

"Veeet... ves thet ell joost un ixcoose-a tu geg sumeune-a yuoo ell deedn't leeke-a? Veell ununymuoos cumments etteckeeng zee ooootseeder insteed ooff etteckeeng zee inner curcle-a be-a velcumed insteed ooff beeeng bunned?"

See what I mean ?
Now this is what makes the internet great !

scribe said...

"Here-a I EM und it's ell ebuoot ME ME ME!"

(Hey, thats fun!)

blueneck said...

Shurter Svedeesher DB: I vunt tu be-a a blug vrecker, tuu. Ooh pleese-a pleese-a let me-a be-a a blug vrecker.
Bork Bork Bork!

canberra boy said...

Pleased to meet you (ms xeno), hope ya know my name...

Sorry... I missed the Rolling Stones tour in 1973 when they were at the height of their abilities. I finally got to see them in 2003.

Scribe, for some strange reason the word 'sociopath' has been bouncing around in my head: then I found this.

canberra boy said...

Oh, and thanks... now I understand where the intertubes came from.

catnip said...

Hi canberra boy! Please check your e-mail. Thanks.

Since this is an "open" thread, I guess I should be open about something. Hmmm...let's see. Okay. I know. I find peeps fascinating. Caution: that site has pics of peep torture. Save the peeps!

DavidByron said...

Ah the deletions have started. And not of the anonymous comment by the insider, but of the non-anonymous comment by the outsider. Gosh well this site maintained it's integrity for all of about 24 hours it seems.

Surely the bannings will follow very soon.

I'm sure that catnip approves of the censorship. After all it was done on her behalf supposedly.

Was deleting one of my comments worth the integrity of the board? The answer must be "yes" because the integrity of this board was such a very small thing to begin with.

scribe said...

In my practice as a psych nurse, the patients with that that diagnoses were the ones we dreaded getting the most. Tough, very tough to work with, as the capacity for compassion and empathy for others is usually just not there, and there is little to no fear of the consequences of any of their own behaviors. But not everyone who acts that way at times is truly a sociopath either..

scribe said...

Hey DB, gotta hand it to you you are a pretty skilled "baiter" aren't you?! Catch much lately?

DavidByron said...

Or are you just a shit-stirrer by choice because it's fun?

If you look closer it's more that I am a shit magnet for the people who cannot help themselves. A sort of mirror that shows the worst side of other people.

I didn't ask to be constantly attacked and insulted and censored on this board from the moment I arrived here but that is what must always happen because of the petty hatreds I seem to bring to the surface so quickly.

You might want to look at my first post here and the reactions to it to get the feel of that. But then if you'd done that you might have known the truth; better to just slag me off like everyone else. Safer.

As for me I came here to talk META and that is what I had my posts here deleted for doing (discussing bannings and outings as above). Would you like to join me on topic or would you like to carry on posting 100% flame posts?

Silly question. We both know the answer.

spiderleaf said...

DB, it would help your case if you didn't lie. You had one post deleted because it crossed the line into sexual fantasies that you obviously can't help expressing. Other than that your hyperbole and nonsense still stands in the comments.

Try again (which we know you will 'cause you just can't help yourself and looooove the sound of your own keyboard evidently).

DavidByron said...

Hey DB, gotta hand it to you you are a pretty skilled "baiter" aren't you?!

Thanks. I thought your own digs were a bit tired and cliché. The old fake diagnosis routine. I'm better at throwing crap than most of you because I've got real amunition. You really are hypocrites. look at what poor Ms Xeno had to resort to:

DB is married to a series of tubes. Awkward to hug, Methinks.


I'd be ashamed to post flame that sucky. At least don't throw stones when you live in a glass house "methinks".

No, I learned how to throw shit from the best; feminists. I just add some truth to the mix to make it more potent.
----------------------------------

I'd love to be able to quit this flame fest but my fans demand it you know.

The comments above about SuperVixen for example are really just intended to ask her to address the inconsistencies in her position regarding censorship. But the fans demand flame you know.

At least I think that's the case....?

DavidByron said...

spiderleaf: it would help your case if you lied a great deal more.

DavidByron said...

catnip: do you feel sexual harassed by me? The audience wants to know.

Will you come to spider's rescue here and pretend you are that insecure just to vindicate him, and the petty minded censorship you surely don't approve of.... or will you let your friend hang out in the wind?

scribe said...

DB writes: "But then if you'd done that you might have known the truth; better to just slag me off like everyone else. Safer."

The truth is, DB, I am not ready to "slag you off". I do my best to make up my own mind about people I meet, based on one my own observations/interactions with them, not other peoples. Anything you are hearing from me is based on what I see of you here. (at least thats what I am aiming for anyway.) You seem to have attained perfection (in you own mind,) but I know am still a work in process and can be wrong sometimes, which bothers me not at all.
Plus, I wasn't even involved in any of the history between you and others here so am not interested in it.

So! If you want to stop with the snide insults toward me, or me as a feminist, and have a real conversation, I'll be happy to stop insulting you and judging your stance as misogynist until you show it to be so in your interactions with me. You interested in that?

scribe said...

(Going off line till later today)

spiderleaf said...

I need rescuing? Okay. Catnip, please save me from typing online... you're my only hope Obi Won.

And who is this "him" you speak of -- is there another spiderleaf posting here?

DavidByron said...

Scribe: ok we have a deal then.

I'll be happy to stop insulting you and judging your stance as misogynist until you show it to be so in your interactions with me. You interested in that?

They call me a misogynist to shut down my criticism of feminism as anti-liberal. It's the same way Zionists tend to throw around accusations of anti-semitism.

Since this is a META board I'd rather not talk about the criticism of feminism itself, although if you are interested you can email me. The use of labels such as "misogynist" and "anti-semite" as a means of censorship is META though.

spiderleaf said...

Leezy - you are so right...

Now this is comical. BooMan , on his FP is advocating this guy doesn't go to jail for weapons sales because he went to high school with him? See, he really does think the rules should apply to everyone else but his friends.

And when someone asked "Why should we care again?" (or something along those lines), his response was "Because he's my friend". Sooooo, by that logic, if he went to school with Scooter Libby we should be hoping for a pardon?

What a tool.

spiderleaf said...

Oh and DB, BooMan admits today he did ban hrh, aka supervixen. Got any more bullshit to spew?

alohaleezy said...

Spidey...I am so flabbergasted by what he writes at times. I have been banned(after asking for my account to be removed which he refuses to do because it is too much work)but it took three days to talk MilitaryTracy into leaving and her asking him to remove her posting abilities so she wouldn't be tempted to post. He claims he banned me because I said he was wrong. He claims I publicly called him a liar on Dkos. I NEVER did that. I could give two shits about being banned. It's just the fucking hypocrisy of it all. What a bunch of crap.

Now, on his frontpage he writes aboutanother one of his poor psycho friends being misunderstood by the police. He hopes his friend doesn't go to jail for having weapons hidden in false bottom spaces in his car? Am I missing something? Bad News? For whom? Not the public that is for sure. Lock the guy up and throw away the key. And his girlfriend is all freaked out because she thinks someone is stalking him? Look who his friends are for cripes sake. End of rant.

DavidByron said...

Oh and DB, BooMan admits today he did ban hrh, aka supervixen. Got any more bullshit to spew?

You seem to have an authoritarian thought pattern. You don't seem to see internal contradictions in your thoughts. Poor logic skills.

SV said she was banned because of the evidence of not being able to post. She stated that the banning by Booman was wrong. An accusation of as much weight as the weight of the crime. SV then discovered she could post after all. This was before any announcement by Booman (could you link to it please btw?) At that point she was in the position of accusing Booman of a crime that, so far as she knew, he hadn't committed. And possibly he banned her on the basis of that false accusation for all I know.

At any rate whether he had in mind to ban her already or not she wasn't banned at that point. SV should have retracted her accusation when the evidence that suggested she was banned was eliminated. She did not. That's a moral issue. If banning is a serious offence then so is making the accusation of it falsely.

Secondly SV clearly bans people herself and is good with banning. That led to the ironic comment about unbanning pyrrho at her site (he also is banned from Marisacat's place). This suggests hypocrisy - another moral issue.

Please explain how the fact that Booman subsequently did ban SV, if that's true, proves that these comments of mine are void? (or "bullshit" as you put it)

The authoritarian mind is incapable of logic like this but instead leaps to the end and basically says, "well look Booman eventually did ban her so none of that matters. He's the bad guy therefore nothing she did is of any moral consequence because she must be the good guy."

This is an anti-rational thought process.

I've also posted some evidence of mixed messages coming from Marisacat's tribe about the legitimacy of outing people (good when Marisacat's crowd does it, bad otherwise). It's important because - I am guessing here - that was likely the reason behind SV being banned at Booman.

I think outing people is really nasty and although I'm second to none in supporting free speech that behaviour would cross the line for me. Anything likely to hurt people in their real lives -- hurt their families too - demands attention. I just don't understand how it is that SV cannot see this. Irrational feelings of self-righteousness in attacking others is another authoritarian trait. SV just can't seem to see she did anything wrong. her behaviour doesn't pass the most basic test -- how would you feel if someone did it to you, or your loved ones?

spiderleaf said...

He banned supervixen (you aren't able to post = banned). She was subsequently posting as hrh.

Go find your own links, it ain't hard and i'm not your secretary.

alohaleezy said...

It's the DOJ thread and he admits he banned her for a short while because he was feeling "peevish"? WTF? This guys traffic is going downhill fast. Look at the meter. Hasn't been over 5000 in awhile now. pretty soon it will be Martin and his girlfriend CG. What a joke.

DavidByron said...

I got it now.

I found them although if spider already had the link it would only have been a common courtesy to post them.

It seems that she was never banned and is not banned now. Instead Booman "peevishly" (his word, his concession) blocked her for a couple of hours before realising he was being an asshole. He then refers to some new rules which in any case don't apply to SV. Since he's said he was being peevish and then "calmed down" he appears to be admiting fault, albeit in a very non-apologetic way.

So in summary Booman was a dick, admited fault, probably never intended a permanent ban and SV can now post although understandably doesn't care to. However Booman still insists, and I think rightly, that the outing by SV was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right and I think he deserves some acknowledgement here for admiting he was at fault for his "peevish" temporary blocking SV.

You could argue that for two hours Booman intended the suspension to be permanent - a ban. The evidence doesn't support that but in any case he admited fault all by himself so as these things go that's not awful.

All of this has no effect on my criticism of SV above.

I'm not saying this to attack SV. This is intended as constructive criticism. I understand that might be hard to believe. In part that's why I make deliberately over the top comments to make it all easier to take in (or as JJB said "unintentionally funny").

I'm pretty sure SV's political beliefs are much much closer to mine than Booman's. Same with Marisacat and MSOC. I don't much care if Booman is a dick. I do care about the integrity of people who are lefties. Lefties ought to be above reproach. Booman is a dick and it's nothing to me. Kos is so far right that when he is a dick and I actually can see the advantage of it for me. As for Republicans if they were not assholes I'd be disappointed and surprised.

I have to hold SV to a high standard because I associate with her politically. Do you understand?

I could say "I only do it from love" but that's not a very good way of putting it. I criticise most those who I have the highest expectations from.

alohaleezy said...

Put on your hip waders folks. It's getting deep in here.

Marisa said...

LOL this thread has become the DB Meta Lounge.

He is like Typhoid Mary... viral.

supersoling said...

Hip waders?! I'm installing windshield wipers on my eyelids, it's gotten so deep LOL!

ms_xeno said...

Typhoid Mary had an actual job. I'm sure she would for that reason alone resent the association.

Shame on you, Mcat.

ms_xeno said...

canberra boy wrote:

Pleased to meet you (ms xeno), hope ya know my name...

I was this close to quoting Midnight Oil's "Surfing With A Spoon," just because it was the first Australia-related thought that popped into my aging brain. Then I looked up Canberra and saw that it was inland. :o

So never mind. [passes around box of little Cherry Ripe bars]

Curmudgette said...

davidbyron said...

Scribe: ok we have a deal then.

"I'll be happy to stop insulting you and judging your stance as misogynist until you show it to be so in your interactions with me. You interested in that?"

They call me a misogynist to shut down my criticism of feminism as anti-liberal. It's the same way Zionists tend to throw around accusations of anti-semitism.


*********

Robin's attempt to say women's lives are in danger from a ban on abortion is silly. They are only in danger if women choose to break the law and attempt to kill a human (from the perspective of the pro-lifers). You should be only as sympathetic to such a woman as to a man in the present day who takes a baseball bat to his unborn child's mother's stomach in an attempt to induce an illegal abortion.

And although I am sympathetic to such a man -- since he lacks any power over his own life and his only possible way to prevent becoming a parent is assault -- I doubt many feminists would have sympathy for the "backstreet abortions" that their own policies have forced into existence.

Posted by: DavidByron | August 30, 2005 at 08:49 PM


*********

Typical David Byron screed, excuse me... critique, from here.

DavidByron said...

Uhuh. 'Mudge you posted this before but yuou couldn't say what exactly about it is incorrect as an analysis. You are displaying authoritarian irrationality. In fact it's that authoritarian irrationality that characterises feminism. There's no ability for independent thought processes.

You don't see a need to explain, don't know what "explain" could mean because your thinking isn't based on logic so there's nothing to break down. You simply see someone criticising feminist thought and you take that in itself as evidence of "misogyny" or whatever. No thinking is involved.

As is typical of authoritarians you show an inability to empathise with others' viewpoints.

As noted above from the perspective of pro-life (which I am not) the foetus is a person and therefore abortion is murder. Can you wrap your head around that concept? or do you get stuck on the idea that pro-life is "wrong" so you cannot ever consider it as a perspective?

The point I'm making is that the argument about coathanger abortions makes no more impact on someone who beleives that foetuses are people than the idea that men ought to be able to batter their partners to perform their abortions find sympathy with feminists.

Can you comprehend what is being said? Apparently not. Your mental limitations are not an indication of my supposed prejudice against women. ata ny rate if you just can't understand what is being said then you can always ask for clarification -- instead of jumping to hateful conclusions.

Curmudgette said...

DavidByron said...

Uhuh. 'Mudge you posted this before but yuou couldn't say what exactly about it is incorrect as an analysis. You are displaying authoritarian irrationality.


No. I haven't. You are displaying poor reading comprehension.

DavidByron said...

At any rate thanks for the example of calling someone a misogynist (implied) for no other reason than that they disent.

You make a good example of exactly the sort of thing Ductape was trying to fight when he set this blog up IMO. It's a terrible shame because on many other issues you are able to consider and where necessary, reject mainstream opinion. Various of your own opinions would be rejected out of hand by many others. Would you want to be treated the way you treat me?

DavidByron said...

Poor reading comprehension? But you didn't write anything. Everything you posted was a quote except the final line,

Typical David Byron screed, excuse me... critique, from here

I'm pretty sure I understood what you were saying. You didn't make the slightest attempt to consider what I was saying. That is authoritarian behaviour.

I don't think this behaviour characterises you as a person. As a matter of fact you are an outstanding iconoclast on just about any other issue. All the more reason why I would be disappointed with you on this topic.

Arminius said...

David, Just go away. Most of us have sympathy for your psychiatric condition and lack of social skills, but we're tired of you.

As my parents used to say in my gradeschool violin lesson days: "Can you play 'Far Far Away'?"

Curmudgette said...

DB,

Still your reading skills fail you! You claimed I'd posted this before. I have not. You misread it. You want to back up and try that again?

I have never posted it before, nor attempted comment. And yes I think the contempt for women exhibited in that rant is self-evident.

DavidByron said...

I guess the morality of the US armed forces would be another area where you have a blind spot. Your views appear to be fairly exceptionalist based... perhaps because of your connections with the US military. But on the whole you have earned your name, which is to your credit.

Can you really not see a problem with saying I have a reading comprehension problem when you didn't make any actual argument? Can you see no problem with claiming that the very existence of a criticism makes the advocate of it immoral?

I don't know how else to put it.

Ok then, try this. If you were authoritarian how would you have behaved any differently here towards me?

DavidByron said...

David, Just go away.

Go fuck yourself, arminius.

Curmudgette said...

No DB. I have no interest in your parlor games. I just dropped by to set the record straight. Outta here.

DavidByron said...

'Mudge,
Still your reading skills fail you! You claimed I'd posted this before. I have not.

Wouldn't that, if true, be a failure of memory?

And yes I think the contempt for women exhibited in that rant is self-evident.

So you just cannot explain why you dislike what I said or think it's wrong? Don't you think the inability to explain your beliefs indicates prejudice and ideology?

I really think you could try harder than "it's self-evident"

Is it your opinion that I am advocating people beat up women for example. I wasn't of course but that's my best guess as to what you could be "thinking". Other than as I said, just a knee-jerk reaction to a criticism of a beloved ideology.

DavidByron said...

No DB. I have no interest in your parlor games.

That's not exactly true is it? You did "play my game". You came over here and posted all that stuff. Isn't that playing my game? You could have just pure flamed me like some others here. No. You felt the need sto say something.

What you mean is you have no intention of trying to explain your contribution in rational terms.

This is all classic authoritarian stuff. You very much want to refute the perceived attack on the ideology but you find you cannot do so on logical grounds so you resort to other means. In this case an attempt to say that I am immoral for even holding a critical view. Ostracise the opponent and nullify the criticism.

Is it really beleiveable that you would sit there silent in the face of my "baiting" if you had anything you could defend your view with?

You are a person that specialises in logically refuting even popularly held opinions in essays of some length. But you cannot say a word in your own defence here? Other than "it's self-evident"?

Ok.

Authoritarians are notoriously lacking in self-awareness.... I don't expect you to get it really. And my "baiting" here is just an attempt to get you to look at yourself.

As above I continue to have a high regard for you whereas I understand that your condition means you cannot say the same of me at least not on this topic.

DavidByron said...

Well you are correct that it wasn't posted by you; it was posted at your blog by someone else. My mistake.

Maryscott OConnor said...

You guys...

What thehell happened to the IGNORE tactic? You keep responding to this asswipe, he will keep fucking TYPING.

If you ignore him, EVENTUALLY, he goes away. Honest.

Just Do. Not. Respond.

I know it's hard. I know, I know. Believe me, I know. But it's the only way, short of banning. I banned the fucksnot. HAD to. You guys don't ban -- swell -- but whoa, you're going to encourage these diatribes?

Bleargh. Typhoid DB is right.

alohaleezy said...

Morning MaryScott. I missed your Fox stint last night. Is it up somewhere to listen to now?

DB is a nat that no matter how hard we swat he just doesn't go away. You are right. Ignore the mother fucker.

scribe said...

DB I've just been reading along, interested in trying to discern for myself, what it is you are trying to accomplish here and I can't quite figure it out. I see you don't seem to care for authoritarian thought or behaviors. Yet I read your own words and see:

"I have to hold SV to a high standard because I associate with her politically. Do you understand?
I could say "I only do it from love" but that's not a very good way of putting it. I criticize most those who I have the highest expectations from."

That sounds pretty authoritarian to me! in fact if I didn't know better, I'd think DB was God himself, who had signed onto Mo Betta to judge us all and make mighty pronouncements from on high!

So I ask you: since you seem quite aware that your communication style has not exactly won you lots of friends and followers, :)..what is your actual motive for coming over here and posting? (Rather than assume I know, I am asking you directly.)

ms_xeno said...

scribe:

...what is your actual motive for coming over here and posting?...

It's like that old X-men story arc with Illyana and the demon Belasco. Every time DB gets banned from another space, a mystical bloodstone is added to the collection in his magikal locket. Once he collects enough of them, he "ascends to a glorious destiny," and world rule. I think Satan throws in a set of dishes and a generous 401K, too. Somewhere in the fine print.

Curmudgette said...

scribe said...

DB I've just been reading along, interested in trying to discern for myself, what it is you are trying to accomplish here and I can't quite figure it out.


Actually scribe, I think I have a handle on it. He needs negative attention from powerful women; craves it in fact.

I suggested that he go find a professional dominatrix instead, because blogging doesn't pay me enough to verbally abuse him to his satisfaction. He came over here instead. Lots of powerful women here to tell him he's been a bad, bad, boy.

His internet history is awash with his disruptions of feminist and feminist leading boards. Notice how needs to paint us all as authoritarian. That way he can picture us in black leather snapping a riding crop. It's his little fantasy life and he doesn't want to have to pay for it.

DavidByron said...

One, two, three, four, five.

Five posts all about me me ME!
Five out of five.

I just can't tell ya'all how ignored I feel.

DavidByron said...

If you ignore him, EVENTUALLY, he goes away. Honest.

That reminds me about the story ... I don't know if you've read Surely you're joking Mr Feynman? Either that one or the other book about him. There's a story about young Feynman and a painter / decorator who claims he can mix the colour red from the colours white and yellow. So Feynman at this stage of his life is very much the iconoclast like many here, and he has this sense that the common labourer often knows things science skips so he is very interested in this. He gets the painter to try mixing red from white and yellow. He's at it for a while adding a bit of this and that and stiring. After a while the painter says, "I know what we need!" and adds a bit of red paint to the mix. Et voila! red paint!

I know it's hard. I know, I know. Believe me, I know. But it's the only way, short of banning.

That's what MSOC has found. You really can mix red paint from just white and yellow. Especially if you add in a bit of red paint to the mix.

Oh it's a great book btw.

One thing I do agree about with MSOC, you are doing this to yourselves here. About 90% of the stuff posted here recently has been about a bunch of xenophobes wanting to attack the outsider. You are creating the shitstorm and then you are balming me for it. Now I won't suggest ignoring me because I know you can't (yes I am egging you on -- putting it right in your face to try and help you out here -- am I being obnoxious enough yet to give you all sufficient motivation?) but what I do think is that you should take responsibility for your own decisions.

Everyone who posts a flame post here against me -- which I think is everybody -- has to take responsibility for the obvious fact that I am going to post in rebuttal. Since there are ten times more of you than of me clearly I will be a busy little fella.

Some days I don't know how I keep up.

But magically you all think that you can blame me for your own decisions to create a shitstorm. As if you literally had no choice but to flame me night and day. And this last section is just monumentally pathetic isn't it? FIVE POSTS IN A ROW going on about me and why I should be ignored. (with apologies to scribe).


And here's a thought. What's with the whole no-banning thing anyway? On the one hand you clearly all want me gone (with apologies to scribe - I may need an acronym for that soon) and on the other the no-banning thing means you sort of have to pretend that you don't want me gone.

See that? Free speech is the concept that you want me here, but you don't want me here. If you don't want me here why don't you just ban me? It's as if your concept of free speech is something like,

"Ok we'll allow assholes to post here but if they actually try it, we'll make their life so fucking miserable that they hopefully get the message and bugger off without us having to technically ban them"

Where "asshole" = anyone you disagree with.

That is NOT the concept of free speech ladies and gentlemen. If that is your concept of free speech then you might AS WELL ban me and save us all a lot of time and angst -- (plus I apparently get something added to my 401K). [[at this point I was going to put a jokey zinger about Curmudgette's S&M remarks but then I remembered that my comment would be deleted as "sexual harassment" whereas hers was taken in the right way. But use your imaginations. Something that shows willing but comes out a little creepy would be about right.]]

Where was I?

You know I can be a lot shorter than this if people prefer it.

Ok, well to be concise: you all need to make up your mind whether you really want to be able to hear alternative views, articulately expressed, or not. Hearing alternative views is supposed to benefit you. Benefit everyone. Even if they are dumb ideas it's good to know exactly why an idea is dumb.

Make up your minds if this is a board that wants alternatives or just another of the million boards that does not.

Maryscott OConnor said...

aloha -- I went well, I think. The podcast is not up yet -- we have a bad audio version, not sure if it can be improved.

scribe said...

Ok. I read all of that twice, and I still don't have a clear answer (that "I" can understand anyway,) to my simple, honest question: what ARE your motives for posting here? I've heard a lot about what others think it is, and I hear you saying what you think is wrong with this place and all of us..but I still don't know..from YOU, DB... why you are choosing to post here. (If you asked ME that question, I could answer it pretty simply and I would.) I am honestly curious to know yours.

DavidByron said...

Scribe (saving the best for last):
what is your actual motive for coming over here and posting?

I appreciate your question, but it is hard to answer because it assumes I have a privileged knowledge of my own subconscious, which I don't. I do have my own take of course, and since I do have a privileged knowledge of my conscious, it's arguably better than others. But really - could YOU answer that question?

I'd like to say something noble sounding, and I think that's at least somewhere in the mix, but for all I know Curmudgette, though she was just flaming me, might be right, at least from the simple point of view that people, yes even I, like to meet and interact with others, and especially (shhhh!!!) members of the opposite sex who are attractively loud or "powerfull" as she puts it in the classic feminist put-down [[I never understood why it was a put-down of men to suggest they like powerful women]]

But what is the use of such an analysis?

It would be better to ask about my intentions or my beliefs rather than my motivations. I suspect you may have meant that anyway. You may be saying that my behaviour is in contradiction to what you presume to be my declared intentions. That's a fair criticism.

That sounds pretty authoritarian to me! in fact if I didn't know better, I'd think DB was God himself, who had signed onto Mo Betta to judge us all and make mighty pronouncements from on high!

Being arrogant is not the same as being authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn't mean that you boss people around; it means you like being bossed around. It means you prefer convention and authority figures. Dislike change and outsiders. Prefer to get knowledge by rote or by ideology. It means you support the status quo. Don't make waves and attack those who do.

Does that sound like me?

Two things about my background that may have helped put me here: first I used to be an evangelical christian (in the UK where it means something more sensible than the US) and I believe in what the christian calls "conviction". Second I have a mathematics background, especially in terms of contradictions, negatives, exceptions, counter-examples. I see things differently, I see the gaps where others see the things that make the gaps. And when I see contradictions in people's behaviour I beleive in telling them about it so they can fix it.

I don't think as that as negative any more than picking up a piece of trash in someone else's house is negative. However, it has come to my attention that most people don't take criticism well. Well what are you gonna do? Give up? The jury's still out on that one.....

Anyway that's your answer.

As a matter of interest I wish someone would ask Marisacat the same thing because I've noticed her style of gossiping about people could have had the same intention of benefiting people by pointing out their flaws. However she seems to have hived herself away and become unsympathetic. That seems like a big shame to me, and not just me I think.

And thus ends yet another post all about me me me.

DavidByron said...

The 33 minute gap between the 8:22 and 8:55 comments was how long it took me to answer you, Scribe.

DavidByron said...

Maryscott: I admire your courage.
(re: podcast)

Scribe: 30 of the 33 minutes were me trying to get past the word verification.

Arcturus said...

Ladies & gentlemen, a Motive magically appears:

And thus ends yet another post all about me me me.


anxiously awaiting your next missive, db

scribe said...

well...SHIT!! ! Had a long one all written and then,somehow it disappeared. damn. And now I have to go tend to some 3d matters and have no time to rewrite the whole thing. (It takes me awhile to write anyway as I have some nerve damage in my hands) I'll get back to this later..altho perhaps this conversation should be taken to emial so as to not take up so much space here?

DavidByron said...

Drat. I always write to note pad (he says, not writing to note pad) for the longer posts. Anyway I just got through reading everything "scribe" has written at Mo Betta and I have a couple of comments.

(1) So you are also "Glo"? Why the name/s choice?
(2) Hope your eyesight got better. Just to be sure - you know about holding down Ctrl and moving the mouse wheel right?
(3) Do you write anywhere else?
(4) You have a very credible voice especially on matters of conflict management, blog society, etc. Perhaps you should have called yourself "cassandra". It seems to me that the issues of personality conflict at Boo and MLW could be easily (*easily*) sorted out by simply getting you to moderate in place of the two guys those boards currently have. The only issue I see with getting it to work would be the reluctance of the current admin to give up that job, and your own reluctance to take it on. neither however seem to be problems that cannot be overcome. Accordingly I submit to your authority on matters of conflict management. If you tell me to leave here I will do it. If you tell me to alter my style of posting I will try it. You really seem to know what you're taling about on conflict management.
(5) You're pretty hot on other stuff too; the whole exceptionalism thing. but not feminism. You're wrong about that. ha!
(6) You don't write many diaries I see. That is my loss but your comments are essay length quite often I see. You prefer to re-act rather than pro-act?

I am wondering why you are not better known (to me at least) because you have one of the most powerful voices I've heard. I think you surpass Ductape in fact.

Anyway looking forward to your reply.

scribe said...

NOBODY surpasses Ductape IMO. He is one of a kind in my experience.
Ok. The "glo" was because I signed up for the google account thing to get rid of having to do those stupid word things, and technodunce that I am, it took me awhile to figure out how to get my own name off there. The eyes were fixed by cataract surgery, thank for asking:) I used to write at dkos and after that, at BooTrib and a variety of other sites, intermittently.

I enjoy responding to topics that interest me, and writing my own stories (most from life experiences and learnings) when and if I feel like it, but do not wish to be obligated to any schedule or external obligation to write for anyone. Plus I have no interest in becoming a well known "name" anyway. I just enjoy interacting with interesting folks of all generations on line and writing for the simple joy of it: a sort of an old itinerant storyteller who is fascinated with human beings of all kinds, how and why we are as we are, and how we can keep from wanting to kill each other.

I also firmly believe, because of the proof of it I've seen over and over, that most of the conflict and misunderstanding between human beings is due to an inability to truly communicate with each other, and that with effort, (and a lot of it,) this can be learned to the benefit of all concerned, **IF a degree of shared willingness is present. Its just not all that hard: less "talk and less worship of relentless rational "logic", and more listening from some place of truly wanting to understand each other better. Note: I said "understand," not necessarily "agree." (Which people who are stuck in a black and white, right or wrong style of dualistic thought processing are just are no good at at all.)

For example, you and me. On the surface of it all, there's no chance in HELL you and I could ever learn how to communicate effectively, much LESS ever, ever come to like each other! It is in fact, very rare for me to engage in conversation with any man (or woman) who "comes across" as you do in communication style and comments about women in general From my experience, it is usually a waste of my energy. But my intuition tells me there is more to you than meets the eye and I trust my intuitive process more and more, the older I get. Time will tell. :)Thank you for the other positive feedback. More later when I can get back online..regarding that lost response.

catnip said...

Well, I'll say one thing: no one has ever said this place was dull! :)

I didn't know about that amulet collection angle, ms xeno. That's quite intriguing. I imagine usenet's infamous Meow Brigade must be well stocked with such jewellery. They are, after all, masters in the art of trolling.

I think Satan throws in a set of dishes and a generous 401K, too. Somewhere in the fine print.

That obviously proves that Satan is an American.

catnip said...

I see tipsymcstagger has added MBM to his/her personal blogroll over at dkos, describing the site as:

Mobetta Meta - Harsh indy perspective on big blogs

Thanks for the link, tipsy!

tipsymcstagger said...

No problem catnip.

Looks like my diary today about primarying the Blue Dogs has ruffled some feathers.

Hope no one minds too much my description of Marisacat's blog in same blogroll. It is intended in a spirit of jocular tribute.

tipsymcstagger said...

What's funny is that, if the "10 Random User Blogroll links" is truly "random", eventually both MBM and Marisacat will be front-page blogrolled on the Big Orange.

catnip said...

Looks like my diary today about primarying the Blue Dogs has ruffled some feathers.

No surprise there. I don't know why anyone who claims to be a lefty defends them. Then again, those who do aren't lefties at all.

What's funny is that, if the "10 Random User Blogroll links" is truly "random", eventually both MBM and Marisacat will be front-page blogrolled on the Big Orange.

I hadn't thought of that, you subversive, you! I wonder how long it will take the powers that be to address that "glitch". ;)

Marisa said...

LOL McSwagger

I am much more interested in how fast you caved on Patrick Murphy. Who is not just a Blue Dog but also a New Dem... you know: with Tauscher and Artur Davis.. and so on.

Bowers at Mydd sold him hard, as did Martin at BMT... they swore LOL they all knew him, he was buds with them all, first name basis with Philly Bloggers... worked with Adam B, etc. Then they play shocked he is a blue dog. Then say it does not matter. He is not "really" one. Jsut does that for political cover.

For years they told us, [laugh now] that only Philadelphia and inner burbs could handle a progressive... and where does PM hail from... [laugh again, Phildelphia voting district]

Murphy can b a r e l y get himself to call the war "flawed". Recent Countdown appearance. Would never never never vote to defund, nor vote for much that would not fly well in Alabama.

I have decided most rank and file Dems, online with some rote google skills (I consider myself a lousy googler), WANT to be taken in... and vote for the deluge. Which by the way is a deluge of blood.

it's a pity the Boyz are fakes.

tipsymcstagger said...

Marisacat:
I could have written a diary about centrist Dems in general, in which case the list would have been much longer. But it was about the war in Iraq, and, particularly, about the Blue Dogs who have managed to block even the conciliatory "hard benchlines" legislation. So, provided with evidence that Murphy supported this legislation, I removed his name from the list.

NLinStPaul said...

What's funny is that, if the "10 Random User Blogroll links" is truly "random", eventually both MBM and Marisacat will be front-page blogrolled on the Big Orange.

I just hope that wherever DTF is, he gets to see this and have a good laugh.

Marisa said...

Well I ahve to laugh again.

I was and am talking about PM and the war.

If you have not caught it, watch the Obey hallway encounter. By Monday the transcript from the military mother's appearance on Tweety will be avaiable.

She is very clear, from her many hours on the Hill, the Dems are only really worried about 08, they do not get behind defunding the war and thus CANNOT get the votes. What you do not fight for, you will not get. And that Obey pelosi and others are "hushing people up" and mouthing R talking points.

I will be posting it Monday.

That fluff and nonsense bill with Obama and Murphy and etc., is war weary window dressing in order to do exactly what Adam B did.... slap down the hinterlands, should they dare to chirp..

And nothing more.

No wonder Adam B wants to do Dem party retail online whip work / political work. It is so easy.

tipsymcstagger said...

Marisacat:
Well, if I go back to my diary and explain to everyone how Murphy, on the one hand, is reluctant to even deem the war "flawed" and, on the other hand, has co-sponsored legislation that would be even more effective than the August '08 measures that are being bandied about, the contradiction will quickly be torn to shreds. You have to understand that the diary comes from a position of wanting the troops out now, but grasping for even the slightest indication that the Dems are interested in withdrawal before the next election. It is the fact that even this mildest of measures is being blocked that has provided the opening for the turning of even loyalist mindsets, and your argument would provide me scant traction at DK. Not that I really think any minds were turned by my efforts.

catnip said...

mcat,

MSNBC has the video of Tina Richards posted.

Arcturus said...

tipsy, I'm allergic to orange, so haven't read yr diary - but that won't sto me from trhowing in my $0.02

at some point one has to realize that grasping for even the slightest indication leaves one w/ nothing but hot air in hand - how many dunes does one have to climb to realize that the lovely oasis oe'r yonder is but another mirage?

these propsals aim to reduce US casualties (hopefully) & troop #'s, all the while CONTINUING THE WAR base closures anyone? don't hold yr breath . . .

their line is: the bluedawgs are in vulnerable districts; the liburals are 'safe ' - the only way tehya re going to do anything different than they are doing is to let them know those set as are UNSAFE if they continue on their present course

anti-war activists here in Sacramento have held a peaceful, daily protest - occupying Doris Matsui's office - for two months now - she doesn't even feel obligated to respond to their questions

labor laws, civil rights, social security weren't given by Democrats - they were demanded from them - there's two articles up now at New Left Review that are highly rec'd: Mike Davis "The Democrats After Nov" & Robert Brenner's "Structure vs. Conjuncture" which sketches the rightward trend in this country since Reagan:

. . . The Democrats will no doubt evince a bit more sound, if not much fury in the run-up to the next election. But even if they go on to win in 2008, what we are surely in for, in the absence of a major revitalization of mass movements, is Clinton Redux—conceivably under Clinton ii. In other words, a continuation of the long-term slide to the right, at perhaps a slightly slower pace than under the Republicans.

A political opening?
The fact that the Democrats have remained contenders essentially by playing the Republicans’ game raises the ultimate political conundrum. Between 2001 and 2006, real wages have been flat. Between 2000 and 2004—the last available data—median family income actually fell by between 2 and 3 per cent. Employment growth has been the slowest since World War II. There has been a big drop-off in employers’ willingness to continue to pay for health-care insurance or to honour pensions, along with exacerbated inequalities in the distribution of wealth. In other words, the gap between the material aspirations of the population and what the bipartisan merry-go-round is prepared to provide has reached historic proportions for the post-World War II epoch. Why has the widely bruited new populism failed to become more pronounced?

tipsymcstagger said...

Arcturus:
Yes, I know. America has the bittersweet distinction of having granted white male suffrage prior to the organization of the working class, resulting in a "left" party whose only prospects of government in most European systems would be coalition from the right. In other words, we have no leftist party.

I'd like to do my small part to move the DP to the left, which requires primaries, but I can't wait for the next Great Depression to give us the power to pull policy in our direction. I believe the only satisfactory way out of the current Gordian knot is true public finance reform (not just the half-assed but better than nothing measures of AZ, ME, etc.), which would immediately shift both parties to the left. Until then, I can't, like some well-meaning people, really support third parites because I'm one of those damned "majoritarian system" prognosticators.

I suppose this may leave me without a blog, which is fine. I will continue to read and enjoy MBM and Marisacat without pulling a DB and hijacking threads with demands to be heard, and I will continue to do my small and rather pointless part at DK, which, admittedly, is more about mere online political interaction than anything.

Arcturus said...

you're more than welcome to continue posting here, tipsy (I'd almost say one can't hijack an open thread, but, well, see above . . .)

light a fire under those chairs

make them F E A R for their seats

catnip said...

I'd like to second what arcturus said. Please feel free to post here tipsy!

Btw, our threads tend to go in many different directions, regardless of the posts they're attached to. :)

tipsymcstagger said...

Thanks Arcturus and Catnip,

I appreciate the invite. Let it be know, though, that I was a kool-aid drinker until farily recently. Started off galvanized by opposition to Bush and was perhaps unduly dazzled by the existence of an interactive site poised in opposition. Bought in to the DK community; ignored its centrism out of the belief that anything was better than the SQ. And I still think most of the people there are good people; even after I "turned" I dug BTD's late shift to strident war opposition, though his corrosive posting habits were only fed by his extreme overestimation of DK's power. And I have no knowledge whatsover of DK's pre-Scoop leftist roots, which deprives me of perspective.

Anyway, I like what you guys do, so I'll just be going along for the ride and posting where I see fit. I have no feminist cred whatsoever, so I won't be posting at MCat even given an invite, but I thank that community for helping me with my rejection of the kool-aid.

supersoling said...

Tipsy,
welcome to MB. I thought about the random revolving dkos blogroll myself and how to highlight some real (read forbidden) honest political info. It's a small subversive act, but I have to believe that Catnip is right about dkos figuring out that glitch pretty quickly. Have to agree also with Arcturus' hot air (empty) comment. And why the worry about not getting any traction at dkos wrt Marisacat's ideas? Do you believe that orange is really working to stop the war? Witness the banning od A/BTD this past week because he began aggressively pushing defunding, the right thing to do, all his abusive tendencies aside. Is that what you mean by ending up without a blog? Because you risk banning? Not that I've ever stuck my neck out there. I find them a waste of time all around. Just curious.

My take on 3rd parties is that our political system is dead, unless you like endless war, until we get real choices. But I'm not naive enough to believe that any outside challengers will find success anytime soon. The power is too entrenced. I actually capitulated my principles and crossed over to vote for Kerry in 04 and some congressional democrats in 06 because I allowed them one more try and benefit of the doubt that they would do what they were mandated to do, even though my district, NY 01, didn't have any vulnerable dems, splitting my votes for them with Greens for Gov and other state and local positions. But once again I've wasted my votes on do nothing dems and believed the BBB's when they made assurances about the liberal creds of people like Murphy. Never again. I'm going back to my feeling, like Madman in the Marketplace, that the only thing that will finally force change in this country is a brutal reckoning and comeuppance for our crimes and the capitulation and aquiessence of the democrats in failing to mount any kind of opposition, by witholding my vote from them. At this point it is the only thing that might make them finally understand that they staring down a party extiction level event and their cowardice and corruption will no longer be tolerated. Not by this man, anyway. if something better, that has functional ears, rises from the ashes then maybe there will be enough pieces left to build something new. And if not, so be it. This path we're on, and continuing to endorse quitters and collaborators will bring us to an unpleasant end anyway. Better to do it sooner rather than later.

And I consider myself a pretty middle of the road person.

tipsymcstagger said...

Supersoling:
Well, see, this is why I have no blog. I'm actually so cynical that I'll never exercise the option of abstention, because I believe it to be even more pointless than voting for centrist Dems. At least we might get some heat on lenders out of it (albeit from the same reps who problematized bankruptcy). You can begin to see why I'm a still a member of DK, I suppose, but that's just how I feel.

As for banning and my stance toward the Orange - too many late night "Who are the greatest cinematic villains of all time" diaries, I suppose. I just feel like too much of an asshole to turn on these people I had good conversations with like they were my blood rivals, you know. But post-Nov-2006 has shown quite clearly who was right and who wasn't. The thing is that, for most of the Kossacks, the endgame is still to the right of my beginning. And for the other great Kossacks like NYCeve, their proposals will be accepted and backburnered ad infinitum.

DavidByron said...

I was skeptical that the ten random blog links were actually random. However currently the ninth link is "Haunted Vampire (Carnacki's gig)". The precise title of the link makes it distinguishable as the link from cskendrick's blogroll.

boran2 said...

Is it only anarchists that can post here?

catnip said...

Is it only anarchists that can post here?

Yes.

Oh wait. I thought that said antichrists. Sorry.

Arminius said...

Test. Yes, only anarchists. In day, we pretend to be lawful good. But at night, under peer pressure, we are neutral chaotic.

catnip said...

neutral chaotic

Good name for a band...or a blog...or a cat.

ms_xeno said...

catnip:

...That obviously proves that Satan is an American...

Well, he has to be. Since Jeebus already is.