So, according to the new rules

[reachout]

I could participate in the primary discussion if, instead of trying to write mostly longer thought out posts, I had just flamed away on the 300 post threads? Or maybe I should have just posted a bunch of smiley's on every thread to indicate my approval/disapproval of the subject at hand, rather than actually attempting some analysis?

I tell you what, Powers That Be, just delete this account and I'll go back to some boards that are interested in things like opinons and positions.

For those who have actually provided some solid infomation and insight here, I thank you and hope things go well for the future.

Sincerely,
Mark from MO

[Don Claybrook]

1. You just have 14 more posts to go

Relax, go to the lounge, tell everyone about your favorite songs, lyrics you misunderstood, what your sign is, and then ask a question about your operating system. Then go back to GD,Primary2K4 and post away.


Edited to get rid of inadvertant smiley face. Really.

[Eurobabe]

2. I want my money back!

This is ridiculous! Now I can't post on GD Primary 2004 because I don't have 250 posts? Half of the people on this board do NOTHING to advance the discourse but slam other candidates. Or start imflammatory threads.

Goodbye DU. -Crozet4Clark

[Momof1]

3. I understand your anger, BUT

I am still undecided. I will not go anywhere near that discussion. The people are rude. They have a competition over there to see who is the most obnoxious person. With these new rules, I will wait a few days, then try again. And hope for an intelligent dicussion over the candidates. (If there have been a few threads I missed that were intelligent, I'm sorry. But looking for a needle in a haystack is pointless)

[elsiesummers]

4. I'm dissappointed too

I'm an Edwards supporter and mostly a lurker too. I don't post because I don't want to get in the middle of wars and feel so outnumbered on the board that I get a "why bother to post" attitude.

BTW - I can't see the actual new rules because it always shows up black on the screen - though I'm not a flamer anyway and don't worry about breaking rules since I'm just not that type and never create actual threads.

This rule is dissappointing. At the rate I post here I'll be able to post in the "General Discussion 2008 Primary" thread.

This shuts out the least vocal posters.

[Hoosier Democrat]

5. This new rule is Ridiculous

I just found this Board two weeks ago, now I'm not allowed to comment on the most important issue facing Democrats today!??

To the Powers that be running this Board: This is asinine!!!

If you want to set higher standards regarding the maturity of posts, fine. If you want to censor posts for language or slanderous comments, fine. But to tell me to get lost because I'm not part of the "Old Guard", that really is rotten!!!

And I thought Ashcroft was the #1 enemy of free speech! Silly me!

[outinforce]

10. Some Numbers for Your Consideration.

Take it from someone who has been here awhile, it is not all that difficult to estbalish yourself as someone who has a genuine interest in discussing the issues -- and who has not just come here to preen, disrupt, or engage in other activity.

Let me also point out this:

As of the time I posted this, there were the following number of threads in the following discussion forums on DU:

Latest Breaking News: 23,078
Editoriails: 5,600
General Discussion: 61,079
Lounge: 45,194
Civil Rights, Equality, Privacy: 712.

I would think that you might want to check those forums and their threads out...and to share with us your thoughts on some of those issues.

Maybe it's just me, but I always find that to be more worthwhile than carping about the rules.

[JanMichael]

6. Wrong board. Is it THAT confusing?

Seems like a buttload of folks here are incapable of knowing what subject matter belongs on which board.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. I'd repost this...

...in Ask the Administrators because this thread might get locked anyway (without an answer)...

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. The administrators offered free speech. It was overwhelmingly rejected

Almost 90% voted for more rules. Now you have em.

[outinforce]

9. Honestly!

For heaven's sake!

You will, I hope, excuse me for this observation, but it seems to me, reachout, as though you are saying "If I can't have the rules I want here, then I'm going home".

Let me suggest something to you.

You might want to take the time to go establish your very own discussion board -- and set your very own rules for it.

To my way of thinking, the "powers that be", as you so eloquently put it, have done a remarkably yeoman's (yeoperson's?) job of attempting to moderate a place on the web where passions are going to run very, very high.

Instead of sounding like a petulant teen-ager who isn't getting his/her way, why don't you simply try to abide by the rules?

They aren't that difficult. Really.

ps -- Continuing thanks to the "powers that be" for your efforts at keeping the discussion civil and focused.

[Moderator]

11. Inappropriate for this forum - locking.

Suggest you consider the "Ask the Administrators" forum.