G.D., Please accept my apology ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

Yesterday, I did something I am not proud of ... I did something incredibly stupid, I posted an observation about another DUer's thread and had it saying what it did not say. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023641546

Thankfully, another DUer pointed out the error of my way and after checking it out, the DUer was correct and I was wrong. (While his/her accusations of my intentional mendacity are off-base ... when my wrong started the mess, I don't get to complain about how other people response)

My only excuse is I was going from a memory of Pitts thread ... I remembered "paul" and a sense that Pitt and paul were on the same page. (Most people that read his OP, had the same reading ... check the comments) ... So my linking to his thread was inappropriate and unexcusably sloppy/lazy on my part. I apologize to anyone mislead and/or offended, I particularly wish to apologize to Pitts, the original OP writer that I cited to ... since he did not weigh in, I can only assume that I am on his ignore list ... so if anyone runs across him, please let him know of my apology.

Now, I offer the following (much more accurate) observation:

Notice how …

The same folks that didn't give a shit that they were on the same page as rand paul (the anti-Democrat)” and not giving a damn who knows it because it’s all about stopping the/a war, now give a shit that President Obama was able to cut a deal with Putin … despite the general belief that the deal stops the war they so opposed?

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Character

Character includes a willingness to openly admit when you are wrong.

I did not read your original post, but hold you in high esteem for your post today.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Apparently, not …

Read the responses below … Less than an hour after my apology, 8 posts … 2 accepting, 5 non-accepting, 1 I can’t tell.

7 hours later … 14 posts: 10.5 non-accepting, 2.5 accepting the apology (the .5 accepted the apology, but wanted me to apologize for the 47 people that recc’d the apologized for post), and 1 I still can’t tell whether it’s an acceptance or non-acceptance.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. It has changed around here--a microcosim of the larger society

We are becoming more and more fractured: us versus them. Those who disagree are more than simply wrong, but..."other" and therefore we are able to justify our ugly behavior towards them.

Once we could disagree and support our belief, and have good discussion. Now days, in the words of GWB: if you are not with us you are a terrorist.

Sorry. You may take solace in the fact that you are not the only one who has been treated as the "them" versus us on this board.

[LWolf]

2. Apology accepted,

although my disagreement with your premise is posted on a different thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Hamden McCarthy posting, typical and form fitted.

If your intention is to apologize to Will Pitt, you might consider making the effort to get his name right. It is not Pitts. It is Pitt. Apparently it I easy for you to misquote and characterize in your sermons about the sinners you see all around you, but very difficult to so much as recall the names of those you mischaracterize even when affecting apology.
Not a fan of your tactics, which should have no place in GD. 'No whining about DU' the SOP says. But the BOGGERs need to preach, because that's all they have is foul frames to hang around Democrats. For Obama of course. They attack those who voted for Obama, to support Obama. Of course.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Who is “Hamden McCarthy”? …

My google search turned up nothing on the first 5 pages.

But that said … am I to assume that you do not accept my apology because I got Pitt’s name wrong? I suspect there is little I could write, without you getting all moist in your attack of me, personally, and supporters of President Obama, in general.

Oh … Well!

[Bluenorthwest]

49. 'All moist'?

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Your 'apology' yet another BOG style sermonette to the sinners you imagine surround you. Oh how you long for Meta, oh how you ignore the SOP of GD and whine about DU and DUers.
If your 'apology' was sincere, you'd have deleted that post, not linked to it for more attention. BOG needs Meta, BOG misses Meta.
'All moist'. Whatever floats your boat, kiddo.

[nashville_brook]

4. you should delete the OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. One can not promote that which one has deleted.....

nt

[nashville_brook]

8. precisely.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Why would you …

Consider my failure to delete a thread that was apologized for and long buried by other posts, some nefarious plot to “promote” that which I have apologized for. Should I have deleted the link to the thread that I included in my apology, as well? … since you, apparently, feel the post’s continued existence is a promotional activity.

I guess I should be flattered though … you give me far too much credit for iniquity.

[nashville_brook]

28. it's a common forum courtesy.

your apology has 7 recs -- the erroneous thread had nearly 50. apology threads are never read to the extent of a flame-y thread.

it's courteous to delete the erroneous thread when you post the apology b/c most people read just subject/OP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Thanks for telling me ...

I would have never thought that way ... I, personally, make it a point to read "apology" posts, as I have great respect for people that are secure enough to apologize for their mis-steps.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Good Idea …

I hadn’t thought of that. I had no idea that proper internet apology protocol included seeking out a deleting the post apologized for … I thought it would be like IRL apologies; find yourself in error, say “My bad” and clarify your comment, as needed.

Thanks.

[malaise]

5. Nice 1StrongBlackMan n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

6. I remembered "paul" and a sense that Pitt and paul were on the same page

Of course you did. It is the false meme that BOGers have been pushing. That and many more attack comments that get posted anytime DU members say something that does not agree with the administration's position. I am not as accepting of apologies. I will need to see a change in posting patterns and attack patterns before I can believe you are being honest with your apology. Good day.

Edit, this is still an attack post, just a different angle of attack. Apology NOT accepted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Your decision to accept my apology …

Or not, is on you; but I note that you point to BOGers pushing a false meme anytime DU members say something that does not agree with the administration’s position; but neglect to mention all the invectives launched at BOGer that post things that do not agree with those that do not agree with the administration’s position. Is the former taboo and the latter immune?

With respect to your edit:

I apologized for the inaccuracy of the seminal post; but that does not change the observation that the same folks that didn't give a shit that they were on the same page as rand paul (the anti-Democrat)” and not giving a damn who knows it because it’s all about stopping the/a war, now give a shit that President Obama was able to cut a deal with Putin … despite the deal forestalling, if not, stopping the war they so opposed?

Is my “different angle of attack” inaccurate? Or are you saying, I should just stop making such troublesome observations?

[Scootaloo]

31. Sorry, but this is just silly...

but neglect to mention all the invectives launched at BOGer that post things that do not agree with those that do not agree with the administration’s position.

Well, because as you show, the swamp trolls really bring it on themselves. Like your continued bullshit effort to link people with Rand Paul because they don't want to go to war with Syria. Yeah, Rand Paul doesn't want a war, nor do I. We have very different reasons, but of course that doesn't figure in to your perceptions, to you, anti-war = Rand Paul, and Rand Paul = bad, so anti-war also = bad.

Know what else Rand Paul and I have in common? We use oxygen and adenosine triphosphate to metabolize glucose within our body's cells. And while I haven't seen him shirtless, since we're both mammals, I'll assume he has nipples - so do I! My god, it's almost like I am Rand Paul, isn't it?

Wanna know what's funny? The swamp troll position.

Day 1: Not giving a shit about Syria at all. Period. Syria is where, full of who, going through a what, how many people, and I care why ? Post more pictures of Sunny!

Day 2: OMGFWTFBBQ The President's authoritah has been challenged! MAN THE MISSILES! FULL WAR AHEAD! He's just like hitler, we're vindicating Rwanda FOR THE BABIES and if you don't like it you're an Assad-loving, chemical weapons-snorting, Rand Paulian conspiracy Theorist who hates Obama!

Day 3: Maybe there won't be a war, YAY WE LOVE PEACE AND WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG BECAUSE OBAMA'S A FUCKING WIZARD! No one who isn't an American president was involved or has the slightest bit of agency and anyone who says otherwise wants to graze upon the lush fields of Putin's back hair!

Now you're apparently complaining about how I'm not the only person noticing this whiplash-inducing double about-face.

weird, huh?

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Funny ...

You ask isn't this just silly; then, lead by calling me a "swamp troll" AND assert that anyone that differs from your position are to blame for your invectives; whereas, you are righteous in their indignition ... because you are ... what ... "right?"

That someone would make note that your anti-war stance puts you on the same side as paul, for whatever reason ... that's fine, no one/very few people want war ... but your being in that side is NOT to be questioned ... but you that don't give a shit that they find themselves on the same side as paul are far less charity when it comes to President Obama and his dealings with Putin ... No, this associate is to be questioned, denigrated and casts as anything from blind, dumb luck to Putin's charitably throwing President Obama a solid to "Yeah, we made him do it", anything to stop short of giving the man credit for doing something that you claim to have wanted ... even to the point of not caring about your bed fellow.

And oh yeah, you asked if this wasn't a little silly ... well, yes, it is.

Now to the rest of you post: Bullshit ... where do you get this stuff from ... well, I have seen the "Rand Paulian conspiracy Theorist who hates Obama!" claim and the jury is still out on that ... that does not represent anything I have said.

[Scootaloo]

36. I don't care if I'm right or not, the thing is, I'm fed up

Now, call me nuts (go ahead, you want to) but I'm here on Democratic Underground, aren't I? That since Inauguration day 2001, has been a liberal / left / progressive forum, right?

Ever since 2002, perhaps the majority of posters on DU have been stridently, adamantly anti-war. Not just for the two Bush got us into, but in the many before that as well - what would Du be if every week someone didn't make a "the hippies were right!" post about the war profit machine?

However, in the years since Obama's been in office, this has... changed. And let's be clear, I don't blame Obama, frankly I don't think he gives a parakeet fart about what happens on DU (and if he does, the country's in deep!) What I mean is that these people who for eight years have been principled, ethical, liberal people... suddenly are none of those things.

As it turns out, the only reason many posters here have to oppose the Iraq war was that Bush wasn't a Democrat. These people - and increasingly I realize I have to use that term with reluctance - are basically willing to coast along with absolutely everything Obama says or does. It doesn't matter if it's something awesome like health care or something asinine like getting involved in Syria's civil war, these folks are on board 100% for no reason other than Obama. Or perhaps because Democrat, I can't really tell.

So these people, who I mostly thought of intelligent, ethical, principled liberals... are now screeching hate against "the left," dispensing of their principles to make way for partisan gameplay, discarding ethics with nearly every word they say, and then rather than explain their sudden shift in thinking, they simply bleat "I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT!" as if disposing of your own agency makes things better - or worse, attributing one's own primitive, immoral mind processes to the president (which has been the case for a few who shall go unnamed, long prior to this Syria thing.)

That these troglodytes, these fuck-knuckles who have decided that the president pisses sunshine and farts rainbows, have the audacity, the very notion that they get to come after other people for daring to oppose war? That like you, they get to try to attribute Rand Paul's horseshit to anyone who doesn't think chucking missiles at Syria to see what happens sounds like a good idea? That these outrageous corpse-fuckers who want to blow apart Syrians with blast waves and shrapnel are accusing those opposing an attack of wanting to gas more Syrians?

Yeah, I don't care if I'm "right" - I settle for being factually correct anyway, I'm usually much better at it. But I'm sick of seeing right-wing dumbasses, fascist peckerwoods, murder-hawkers, and John Birch Society slapfucks cluttering up my DU, and I kinda wish the whole bunch would imagine that the president told them to jump off a tall cliff into shallow water.

You and your friends want war in Syria? I'm sure one of the opposition groups will have you. I hear they're a little pressed at the moment and probably wouldn't turn you away even if all the Arabic you know is "ayn al-ḥammam? Yalla, yalla!"

/rant

You know, the only place I've seen anyone attacking Obama for working with Putin is in these posts you've made about it. I've seen several people making hte point that Putin was very much involved and sole credit really can't go to Obama... i know I've pointed out a few times that neither man has nearly the control they wish to portray - and that their devotees wish to attribute to them. Haven't seen hostility.

Which is kinda strange, seeing as how up until three days ago, the BOGers were one John Kerry stump away from labeling Putin as the latest of this month's new Hitlers. You'd think if anyone would be upset with Obama, their cherished and beloved, working with that one... but then you remember, these "people" don't actually have principles.

Anyway. This isn't an apology post from you. It's a desperate attempt to re-expose your inane dunderheaded claims while hoping nobody points out you're being a dunderhead this time. Doesn't look like it worked, sad to say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. I don't do the name-calling thing; but ...

Now, call me nuts (go ahead, you want to) but I'm here on Democratic Underground, aren't I? That since Inauguration day 2001, has been a liberal / left / progressive forum, right?

You forgot an important, named, demographic ... Maybe that explains things?
,,
I had to stop when you questioned the "peoplehood" of people that disagree with you ... picked back up at the end rank mark ...

You know, the only place I've seen anyone attacking Obama for working with Putin is in these posts you've made about it. I've seen several people making hte point that Putin was very much involved and sole credit really can't go to Obama...

Sole credit ... well that's quite generous ... I suspect most would say, someone "stumbling upon"/"being thrown a life-line"/"being forced by" internet warriors, gets none of the credit ... and that is what "these people" have been trying to point out. As this has been a hallmark of the Obama Presidency: for too many here, "President Obama has evil intent" ... and when their most dire predictions do not occur; rather than say, "Wow ... I was wrong on that", the response is "he got lucky it didn't work out the way I thought it would/he's not done trying/he would have done it if we hadn't stopped him", or my personal favorite, ignore that things didn't wotk out like predicted to point to a previous prediction made ... that didn't work out as predicted (see: the CCPI "debate&quot .

That is what is getting/has gotten tiresome. And THAT is why. the BOG exists, as a counter-weight this crap.

Which is kinda strange, seeing as how up until three days ago, the BOGers were one John Kerry stump away from labeling Putin as the latest of this month's new Hitlers. You'd think if anyone would be upset with Obama, their cherished and beloved, working with that one... but then you remember, these "people" don't actually have principles.

There is so much in that section, but I'll sum it up as a complete, and stunning, misunderstanding of what governing in a democratic republic, or living in real life, entails. Sometimes you have to work with the "enemy" to accomplish things ... in this case, it's working with Putin (an undeniably evil man, imo) in order to rid/reduce the ME of chemical weapons ... it means working with republicans to provide healthcare insurance, etc.

I guess that explains why some claim the moral ground (and get a position to effect shouting); while other seek to get elected and get a position to effect change. One makes one FEEL good ... the other allows one to DO good ... President Obama, in my view represents the latter.

Skipped the last segment ... dunderhead? Really?

[Scootaloo]

40. Oh yes, the right-wing Democrats

'Cause once you separate the left, the liberals, and the progressives from the Democrats, that's what you're left with, isn't it? The Liebermans of the party.

Except ol' Joementum, at least he seems capable of independent thought, even if it's only in the crudest shape of solitary self-interest. These posters have abdicated their ability to think beyond "the president, therefore good!" For all their frothing about how the left is "the new tea party!" these dumb motherfuckers - is that better than "persons" in quote marks, you think? - have much more in common with those knee-jerking reactionary authoritarian stooges who couldn't think their way out of an open door.

Tell me 1SBM, who is "most"? Now that you point out the specifics (good for you, you're advancing!) I can say I've seen your examples. A few of them. Hardly the plague you are characterizing it as.

That is what is getting/has gotten tiresome. And THAT is why. the BOG exists, as a counter-weight this crap.

I'll grant maybe I'm taking it a bit personal. But you know, since I've been on DU, I've been on Obama's side. I've defended his positions and policies as best as I can (which I'll grant, might not have always been that well) I've argued against the people attributing malicious intent to him - and still do.

However I couldn't take his side on Syria. I know too much about Syria to do so. No military operation we performed there, big or small, long or short, would ever do anything except cause more harm. And for this betrayal, this terrible backstabbing, I'm now an Obama-hating, right-wing extremist who wants to gas people, a fascist (?!) and Republican who wants Chris Cristie to waltz into office in January of 2017, and all these other things... because I refused to join the BOGgers howling for fire and blood in Syria. In fact I was even banned from the BOG, not for anything said about Obama, but simply pointing out to a poster who was demanding strikes to help the refugees, that missiles don't actually help refugees.

Whatever the BOG's original purpose, it seems to have devolved into a placewhere pro-war, anti-left jackasses get to have an echo chamber. Maybe it's bad management, I dunno, but when I see a culture of attacking other DU'ers and liberals for not being sufficiently blood-thirsty, then banning them if they attempt to rebut? I'm going to dismiss the place as a new right-wing echo chamber on DU and call the people there swamp trolls, and happily express my sentiments that they can self-fornicate until they drop dead of dehydration.

There is so much in that section, but I'll sum it up as a complete, and stunning, misunderstanding of what governing in a democratic republic, or living in real life, entails. Sometimes you have to work with the "enemy" to accomplish things ... in this case, it's working with Putin (an undeniably evil man, imo) in order to rid/reduce the ME of chemical weapons ... it means working with republicans to provide healthcare insurance, etc.

Yup, I'm not arguing that. I expect world leaders to work together. YOU were the one arguing that people are attacking Obama for working with Putin, which I still have not seen.

Rather, I was pointing out that as you see - by your own words - Putin as an absolutely evil person, shouldn't you, by principle, be upset by Obama working with him? Were you upset by the Donnie McClurkin thing? You weren't upset by the notion of a wrongheaded move to get involved in the Syrian civil war at high cost with no benefit, on Obama's say-so. Point is... you don't actually seem to have principles. You just follow the leader.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I .guess I don't read anger ...

I tried to read the 1st two paragraphs 3 times, then stopped. It made my head hurt and I still have no idea what you were trying to convey ... other than you were stomping you feet and wagging you finger.

Try reading that word salad and edit it into something that others, not privy to your angry place, can understand.

[Scootaloo]

42. It's perfectly understandable

And I know you "got it" just fine. Just as i know you "got" Luminous Animal's post downthread just fine. Feigning the inability to comprehend clearly-made points doesn't actually make you look very intelligent, I'm afraid. The rest of us, it's an obvious admission that not only did someone else show you up on all counts, but that you can't even muster an attempt at a counter-argument.

Maybe stick with bleating about how liberals are like Rand Paul, that seems to be more within your less than prodigious abilities.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. LOL ...

okay!

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Okay, maybe the 4th time ...

is the charm? (I really do make an effort to understand people)

I skipped down to the 4th paragraph and it all makes sense ...

I'll grant maybe I'm taking it a bit personal. But you know, since I've been on DU, I've been on Obama's side. I've defended his positions and policies as best as I can (which I'll grant, might not have always been that well) I've argued against the people attributing malicious intent to him - and still do.

However I couldn't take his side on Syria. I know too much about Syria to do so. No military operation we performed there, big or small, long or short, would ever do anything except cause more harm. And for this betrayal, this terrible backstabbing, ...

Your feelings are hurt! Your feelings are hurt that others would trust the collective wisdom of the Obama administration than some random poster to an anonymous message board. And the really sad thing is ... you feelings are hurt over something that didn't happen. No one called you all those terrible, terrible things because you "refused to join the BOGgers howling for fire and blood in Syria" (No one in the BOG was making such a call) and you were NOT banned from the BOG for "simply pointing out to a poster who was demanding strikes to help the refugees, that missiles don't actually help refugees." But I can't get you to see anything so long as you are in full feelings hurt, victim mode.

But here's a hint: when you have to mischaracterize the arguments of those that disagree with you, it generally is a sign that you should look deeper into why you feel that need.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. That response is a chracterization of the other poster, an attack not a reply.

Name calling and not much more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Thank you ...

for that bit of analysis.

[Oilwellian]

9. This is an apology?

I find it equally insulting and pure, deluxe flame bait.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Yes, it is an apology …

An apology for the inaccuracy of my initial OP, not the observations contained in it.

Your insult aside, is my observation (as amended) inaccurate?

[bvar22]

10. If you were sincere, you would have deleted the offensive OP.

You didn't.
UNREC, for a phony OP.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. No problem. What about the 47 people that recommended it, though? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. I am not responsible for …

anyone’s opinion other than my own.

Agree?

[frylock]

12. no apology for your bullshit accusations of racism, i see

[sibelian]

13. Ignore him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. What bullshit …

Accusations of racism? Do tell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Don't stutter ...

what post did I lodge an accusation of racism?

[Luminous Animal]

14. You post is still nonsense.

You: The same folks that didn't give a shit that they were on the same page as rand paul (the anti-Democrat)”
Me: I am anti-war war. On this political discussion board, I am not silent when we, as a nation, debate bombing yet another country. That Paul holds a similar view (though, I am not so sure of this - haven't read anything about his opinion), does not dissuade me from advocating for no more war. That Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons DO want to bomb Syria actually is more important to me that whatever the Pauls say.


You: and not giving a damn who knows it because it’s all about stopping the/a war,
Me: I haven't seen any "I stand with Rand" posts regarding the bombing of Syria. This is simply an unsubstantiated smear.
Yes, it is true, that anti-war DUers are adamant and vocal about where they stand. What would you have them do?

You: now give a shit that President Obama was able to cut a deal with Putin …
Me: This is where you veer off into garble. Yes anti-war people do give a shit that the Obama admin is working with Putin's admin to explore a diplomatic approach. We believe it is a good thing.

You: despite the general belief that the deal stops the war they so opposed?
Me: Huh?

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. And your response is nonsense …

You do realize, that parseing/breaking up posts into bite size pieces, the way you have, is intellectual dishonest. Right? It assumes that a part of a comment is the complete comment. Agreeing with any, or even, every segment does not infer agreement with the entire statement, when read in its entirety. But that is a logic lesson … and unrelated to my initial apology, or this current observation.

Are you attempting to characterize those that those saying that their ending up on the same side as paul is irrelevant; AND their saying that President Obama’s deal with Putin was merely a stroke of luck … a life line thrown out by Putin, or other such rot, is somehow supportive of President Obama’s deal with Putin? To argue that, you would have to disbelieve that President Obama (and Kerry) had been in talks about this matter, before Kerry’s “gaffe” (something that we know to be true) and you would have to believe that the threat of violence is not a tool to further diplomacy (also, something that is proven).

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. I think I may be the DUer you're referring to in paragraph 2

If so, I stayed silent because I didn't feel like fighting with you...not because I'm ignoring you, and not because I agree with you. I do not. As others pointed out, you posed a few links to some large threads. No one, NO ONE in that thread of 140+ responses was able to name a single name of someone who was horrified that it looks like we won't be going to war. Some people agreed with you, but many more people asked for you to give an example of one of the people you're talking about. Neither you, nor the people in agreement with you, could name anyone. You tried to sell propaganda. You weren't truthful. Your compatriots weren't truthful.

As to your new graybox observation: sorry to do this again to you, but prove what you're talking about. Specifically, you mention that there are those who are unapologetically on the side of Rand Paul, at least insofar as warfare is concerned, and that they're not ashamed to say that they agree with Rand Paul. If you're referring to the narrow construct of agreeing with Rand Paul about not going to war, even if you don't agree with anything else Rand Paul says, and even if you don't agree with WHY Rand Paul is playing the anti-war card, then fine. I'm one of those people. That's just another way of saying the ever-popular "a broken clock is right twice a day". Like Will Pitt, I also don't give a shit what Rand Paul says or does. If he happens to agree with me, then he does, for some set of reasons that are different than my reasons. It's incidental that he agrees with me, and neither of us (Rand Paul, me) are swayed one little bit by one another. He doesn't give a damn what I say, and I've already affirmed that I feel the same about him.

Part 2 of your new assertion is where I have more trouble: you've claimed that the anti-war left now does "give a shit that President Obama was able to cut a deal with Putin...". Who is it that "gives a shit" (by which I assume you mean "objects", since we all appear to give a shit about Syria one way or another)? I haven't seen anyone objecting to the Administration starting to make this deal with Russia r.e. Syria's chemical weapons. You may or may not be able to name a DUer who has expressed such a thing, but you certainly will not be able to name several (as in, "The same folks that didn't give a shit...&quot . There's no trend like this on DU. If you wish for people to believe what you're saying, you're going to need to provide some specifics.

[Hekate]

18. KnR. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong

[xfundy]

30. I didn't read it

because I've also made negative posts based on what I thought I saw, or was made so angry by the premise, I reacted angrily.

We all do it sometimes. Right now I've got a stricken post on my record, when I reacted to an obvious troll and was chastened.

It's, fortunately and unfortunately, a human reaction. When we are pricked, we bleed. Sometimes even a mental prick can make us react the same way. (Don't anyone get dirty with that.)

[longship]

32. We all hold strong opinions here.

Some people also hold grudges.

Some people like to get into a battle royale.

Some will stick to a position in spite of a mountain of evidence against it. (Sounds like the GOP.)

Some are one issue politicos. Nothing else matters but that one trigger point.

But rational discussion ignores all of these transient things.

I have no DUers on ignore. Discussion here should always be on the issues, always speak to the known facts, and always impersonal. Passion is always allowed. Name calling, never.

That's where many of us go off the rail here. It's easy when typing on a PC (or whatever). I've done it myself here. But I still have nobody on ignore because I value people's judgement even when I disagree with them. If a discussion begins to go south, I exit gracefully and politely.

It also takes a good person to admit fault.

R&K

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Apparently, not ...

judging from the few that accepted the apology versus the many, many that questioned my sincerity and/or flat-out refused to accept it ... I guess because I didn't back completely away from my observation, and they did not read what I was apologizing for ... apologies are a sign of weakness ... blood in the water.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

43. "apologies are a sign of weakness"

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Manipulative bullshit.

I love those who attack, then cry "victim" when called out on the attacks. Somewhat like that Spandan/deaniac83 thread from last night. "It was an emotional time," the little troublemaker proclaimed (THERE'S your emoprog).

DUers' bullshit detectors are tuned to recognize a genuine apology v. a non-apology apology.

My goodness, such drama emanating from the BOG... don't you get enough attention in "real" life?

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Okay ...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. Find a new schtick.

This one is well past its prime.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Okay ...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

57. "To my BOG brethern/sistern, I apologize..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023567245#post76

My goodness, aren't you the cutest little equal opportunity offender? I thought I remembered another of your recent apologies -- thank you, DU search function.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Yawn.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. One has nothing to do with the other ...

but someone willing and able to read, would not have tried to connect the two.


Lather, rinse, repeat. Yawn.

[quinnox]

37. Meh, du is not all about you

I could give two figs about this apology, whether it is phony or not. Pet peeve of mine is these kinds of ego and drama threads.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. You're right ...

It's clearly all about you!

{Take another sip of coffee ... maybe you'll recognize the hitch in your comment, if your ego doesn't prevent you from swallowing}

[WilliamPitt]

46. Confused.

"The same folks that didn't give a shit that they were on the same page as rand paul (the anti-Democrat)” and not giving a damn who knows it because it’s all about stopping the/a war, now give a shit that President Obama was able to cut a deal with Putin … despite the general belief that the deal stops the war they so opposed?"

I didn't give a shit about agreeing with Rand Paul. I didn't want a war. This deal averts that war. It is a good thing.

I am not following the logic of that sentence of yours above. Is it suddenly a bad thing to be glad we're not shooting?

Help?

P.S. On edit: I'm happy to accept any apology from anyone around here. I'm just genuinely unclear what you are apologizing for, and what you meant to clarify with that above sentence.

Clear?

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. No ...

we should be extremely happy that a deal was cut that averted military action ... that is a very, very good thing. My point is/was a reference to how some refuse to give President Obama (and his administration) any credit for that ... preferring to have it as blind luck, or Putin throwing President Obama a life line, or "we made him do it", when all evidence points to discussions going back a year, or more.

[WilliamPitt]

50. Thanks.

Clarity is always awesome.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Not a problem ...

seems many don't want clarity ... rage and outrage works so well. (referring to DU v DU ... not DU v Policy).

[MrScorpio]

53. K&R nt