correcting a "tempest in a teapot" regarding THE LIST

[Lerkfish]

It was not my intention, but actually, I MAY have inadvertantly added to this tempest in a teapot.
on another website, someone else listed a top ten bad list, and in response I posted my own ignore list. I was being coy and saying someone gave it to me, to be funny, intending to be like when someone goes to a therapist and says, "Lets say a guy, lets call him Joe...." actually, no one gave it to me, it was my own list.
My point was that all the people on my list, if ignored, would make DU a more pleasant place to post if you weren't a Clinton supporter.

I didn't mean anything more about it than that.
What has happened since, well, It seems a case of extreme paranoic overreaction.

The ironic thing is now they're blaming the Obama people, who had nothing with my list, and who are not passing a list around, to my knowledge.

I don't consider myself an Obama person per se, I just really don't like Clinton and Obama is a better choice between those two.

so, the keystone cops routine is IF they based their paranoid assumptions on my coy post, they were absolutely wrong.
There may be other true lists that I"m unaware of, but if any of this is based on my ONE post elsewhere, I wanted to point out that the Obama people had nothing to do with that whatsoever.

as to who comprised my list: I only put on ignore people that posted things so outrageously negative, or unwilling to discuss their candidate preference in such a way as to engender rational discussion.

Equally, I assert I have the right to ignore whom I choose, and my opinion was that until Clinton drops out or the convention, I have no patience for the constant slash and burn spamming of DU with nothing substantive other than outright attacks. There are some posters whom I did NOT ignore who even though I disagree with their choice, they still are able to conduct themselves honorably and discuss actual issues or questions in way that invites discussion instead of dividing DU.

I recognize that many people may view ME the same way I view those on my list, and that's ok. I respect your right to put me on ignore, and I would even advise that if that is your opinion of me.

I know that in the past week, I've created my list, and my blood pressure has dropped considerably, AND I'm not directly antagonizing those people anymore, so there's a benefit to them as well, I think.

at any rate, my purpose with this thread is NOT to laud ignore lists per se. I just want to clarify a misconception that any might have in the Clinton camp that *IF* they based their concern on *MY* post at another forum, then they should know the actual circumstances of how I posted it, and stop blaming Obama supporters for something they are, to my knowledge, not doing.

If you want to hate me, fine, but I'd feel awful if something I said gets someone else in hot water for no reason.

thanks for listening, and I hope the mods leave this up long enough to let at least some people work this out on both sides.

peace.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Thank you!!

I was getting really irritated by people blaming us for that. Thanks for owning up. :)

[Lerkfish]

5. I would also add, that since I had many of these people on ignore,

I had no idea of this tempest at all, until other people started posting about it. So I have no idea of how widespread or prevalent this misperception is.

[bicentennial_baby]

7. Pretty widespread, as in the hot GDP topic yesterday...

It was ugly. Even Obama supporters believed it. :crazy:

[TomBall Democrat]

26. It seemed like an asinine thing to do - but ....

I was a little hurt that no one sent me the list!

LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[40ozDonkey]

36. Me too!

I was wondering where the hell this list is, lol.

[stevenleser]

69. TomBall and 40oz, I was warned by the Mods not to offer to send anyone the list I made, so...

I'm not offering... ;-)

[JackBeck]

59. And the apologies will be arriving...when?

I was away all weekend and have been playing catch-up since Monday night, trying to make sense of all of this.

But the one of the things that stuck out the most was the blame being thrown at sniffa and yourself, by the usual suspects, which came as no surprise.

[bicentennial_baby]

60. Thank you...and, I'm not holding my breath

And you, as my friend, know that I don't engage is childish BS like that. Neither does Sniffa. If we have people on ignore, it's our own personal decision, not based on some stupid list. :)

:hug:

[JackBeck]

65. Of course you don't.

And moving forward, we know there will be a lot more BS surrounding this situation, probably many attempts at revisionism, so it's time to start bookmarking threads.

:hug:

[Crunchy Frog]

128. I've got a whole folder devoted to this little kerfuffle.

[sniffa]

63. Oh, you noticed that too?

I can be a total asshole (though, not as much as I'm given credit for), but as Bi-Baby said, I don't engage in that kind of childish BS. My childish BS is totally started of my own accord and is not in collusion of mass lists. :P

Oh, and :loveya:

[JackBeck]

66. From what I've gathered

this was particularly nasty, but given some of the participants and their history for creating some of the most underhanded lies about some posters, it, again, comes as no surprise. It's sociopathic, in some cases.

:pals:

[sniffa]

70. ..

:loveya:

You're more than right.

[sniffa]

2. I went and hunted down that thread

and I posted several times the actual story behind it without getting too specific. I finally just copied and pasted the thread (still up) to prove a certain DUer was at best, blowing things out of proporsion.

I was also told that the list is now in circulation here - but mostly between Hillary supporters passing it around.

If there was a list going around for Obama people, then there are many big (in DU world) Obama supporters here who haven't received this list. Myself, and Bi-Baby to start.
And judging from the other threads many more, but I won't speak for them.

Thanks for this thread.

[Shakespeare]

10. d00d--link me to that thread?

This mess is a big ol'......mess.

Glad things are getting cleared up today. :hi:

[sniffa]

20. Indeed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5238901

Few posts in there.

Posts in other threads, but here's where I posted Lerkfish's 3 posts from another site to point out that this was a tempest in a teapot.

[K Gardner]

16. Glad you didn't get it either.. I was starting to feel left out, LOL. I doubted from

the start that this was "real", glad its now been confirmed.

[sniffa]

29. Yeah, I immediately smelled bullshit

Thankfully, one of the more "ardent" HRC backers started a thread about and quoted that site (without naming it) and formed the story that started this uproar.
So I went looking for it, and found it rather easily. I also noticed that the story going around was, rather false.
Too bad that doesn't matter, as there's already at least one DUer on this thread saying the List thing is true, and LF is a liar.

Oh, and I have a screencap of the original deleted thread (The OP only though).

[SoCalDem]

28. I never saw ANY list.. I probably was not on it..but in case I was.. Thanks!

No one likes to be left out :P

[Lerkfish]

46. nope, you weren't on my list.

[Crunchy Frog]

130. I ran a poll on the question.

And out of 88 Obama supporters responding, only 7 of them claimed to have actually been sent such a list (and since none of them posted details in the thread, it's highly likely they were really Hillary supporters trying to make Obama supporters look bad).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5243475

[apocalypsehow]

3. I'm finally in the loop - I really had a hard time pinning down what every one was talking about

with "lists" and "sites that can't be named" and all that. Thanks!

[SoCalDem]

109. I still don't know what's going on.. I avoid the drama

and by the time I get curious, it's over :rofl:

[lapfog_1]

4. I have my own, started right after

I responded to an attack thread on Obama. My response generated a number of responses itself, most of which were of the nature "you are ignored" or "why is anyone responding to ignored? (about me)" So I started my own. It has grown now to a much bigger size than I originally anticipated (I figured that 10 or 20 was tops).

I don't apologize for it, it's the only thing that allows me to read GDP without getting bent out of shape or spending an inordinate amount of time trying to "reason" with people that will not ever agree with me, nor I with them.

It's my own list, not one that I copied from someone else, nor one that I have shared (though I have no problem sharing it if someone asks for it).

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Regarding the "passing around" charge...

one other DUer posted a thread with his positive experience using his ignore list. He (rightly) declined to post his list, since that would be calling out, but offered to send it to anyone who PM'd him. I think that's different from the networking image many are horrified about; it was just one guy sending his list to a few responders.

I asked for his list. IMO, it was too long; many were just fervent Hillary supporters. But it did include several names I had pegged as unreasonably resistant to input (truly "bots"). I have ignored those few (about 8), and this place is a lot easier on my nerves.

[stevenleser]

57. That was me and I take responsibility for perhaps adding to whatever conspiracy theories. I

will start an OP to that effect.

[stevenleser]

58. By the way, my list has grown exponentially since that day. Also, a lot of people PMed me for it...

probably in the neighborhood of 30-40 folks.

[stevenleser]

61. And upon further review, I will not start an OP regarding this... two reasons...

#1 - I dont want to burn one of my three posts on that

#2 - Not sure what good it will do anyway

[redqueen]

8. Thanks for posting this.

All that "list" drama got WAY out of hand... let's hope this is the end of it.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. Maybe I'm on your list and you can't see this anyway, but I have to ask the question.

Why would someone go on a discussion board and then ignore everyone who disagrees with them? It's not a real discussion if you only listen to opinions that match your own. I don't hate you, I just don't understand you.

[redqueen]

19. Did you miss this part?

"I only put on ignore people that posted things so outrageously negative, or unwilling to discuss their candidate preference in such a way as to engender rational discussion."

It seems clear to me that this person was not putting anyone and everyone they disagreed with on Ignore. Maybe your interpretation is diffferent.

[carolinayellowdog]

22. The premise is false

Lerkfish pointed out that his ignore list (just ten people IIRC) includes only those he deems completely hopeless.

[Arkansas Granny]

31. I don't see that Lerkfish mentioned how many people are on his ignore list.

I have seen some posters talking about ignore lists that number in the hundreds and I've seen others who say they are putting someone on ignore only because they disagreed with their viewpoint. It has just seemed to me to be self defeating to come to a discussion board and only listen to one side of a discussion. If I have mischaracterized Lerkfish, I apologize.

[Lerkfish]

40. it was more than ten, but you weren't on it.

I honestly did so based on particular posts, not a point of view, there are clinton supporters NOT on my list nor ever would be.

[stevenleser]

62. And Arkansas Granny, you arent on my list either...

just thought I would add that as I am the 'other' purveyor of a 'list'

[Qutzupalotl]

27. I can only speak for myself here,

and pardon the intrusion, but...

I only ignore those who exhibit classic troll behavior, not everyone who disagrees with me.

By classic troll behavior, I mean a combination of ALL of these:

1) posting ONLY threads with negative titles against one candidate

2) appearing ONLY on threads with propagandistic titles, kicking them unnecessarily, while avoiding those with a message undesirable to them

3) being uninterested in facts that conflict with their point of view (this is truly galling on a discussion board)

4) referencing right-wing sources

5) spinning any objective source until it barely resembles the original

[Lerkfish]

39. I can see your post

so no, you're not on my list.

but anyways,that's a tangential point to my thread: I wanted to clear up a misunderstanding.

[Lerkfish]

52. you missed this part:

"There are some posters whom I did NOT ignore who even though I disagree with their choice, they still are able to conduct themselves honorably and discuss actual issues or questions in way that invites discussion instead of dividing DU."

its isn't JUST because I disagree with someone, its because I found what they said or how they said it distasteful and antithetical to rational discussion.

[Arkansas Granny]

56. I apologize if I mischaracterized you. I have seen many posters from both

sides that use the ignore function to essentially form an echo chamber. I realize that my observation does not apply to everyone.

Peace.

[tammywammy]

11. Hopefully this settles it Lerkfish

:)

This was a stupid issue for posters to be upset about anyways.

[sniffa]

14. You know it won't

and you know there will still people believing it, and posting about it.

And yes, it was stupid. :hi:

[tammywammy]

23. Seriously it was up there with cornflake chicken

On the stupid scale.

[Forkboy]

12. The only list I keep starts, "Milk, bread, spaghetti sauce..."

Not that I really need a reminder for the sauce as I'm a pastafarian...but just in case. :)

[gateley]

13. This must be how the candidates feel!

"But all I said was...."

:hug:

[Maddy McCall]

15. That's not true...

You claim that the ignore list was yours, but that's not what you said over there. I'm not going to argue any further, because we're not supposed to discuss ProgressiveIndependent.com here. As you well know.

That's the bad place you put yourself in when you are a very active member at a website that has one forum dedicated to insulting and smearing DU. When you organize your shit over there and it gets out of control, you can't come back here and say, "Oops...what I did over there, I didn't mean to!"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. UUUUUUUU Can't Seeeeeeee Meeeeeeee Neener Neener Neeeeeeener!!!!

Hey! Here's an idea! Let's put the whole world on ignore so that we don't EVER have to be exposed to differing opinions or people more intelligent than us, or have to allow any original thoughts in our heads or allow others to show us why we're being retarded! Yay!!!! Let's all do that! Let's block out anything and everything that doesn't conform to our simplistic viewpoints so that we can protect ourselves from having to actually think and stuff! Woooohooooo!!! I'm in!!!! I want my list to be a million miles long too!!! Then I could falsely think I'm cool and keep myself in a bubble tooooo!!!!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

21. So when does Skinner send you your paycheck?

:hi:

:D

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. ROFL! That Was The Funniest Thing I've Ever Read. It's Amazing What People Will Believe, Ain't It?

Do you have any idea the kind of tin foil mind someone has to have to actually consider that as reality? I mean, whoa... :wow:

[Qutzupalotl]

30. From the OP:

I only put on ignore people that posted things so outrageously negative, or unwilling to discuss their candidate preference in such a way as to engender rational discussion.

Why would you think that applied to you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. It Didn't.

The fact is, the OP merely can't handle people that disagree and are smart enough to overcome their empty logic. Ahhhhhh simpletons LOL.

:rofl:

(and do you believe everything fed to you? Sheesh. If ya view that list, you'll see it CHOCK FULL of posters who are perfectly legitimate and intelligent, and merely didn't stand for the OP's antagonizing and empty bullshit) :hi:

[Qutzupalotl]

38. There's more than one list.

The one that made it to the Clinton supporters is WAY too long. It contains Xultar, for instance. (On edit: I think it had you, too.) The one I saw from a week or two ago just has a few bots.

Please hold off on insulting the OP until you know who's on his list and why.

[sniffa]

41. *sigh*

There was a top 10 list of "freepers on DU."

The first response to that was Lerkfish, with his Ignore list. His list is much longer than 10.

[Lerkfish]

42. and I also made the point I did not consider anyone on my list

to be "freepers".

In retrospect, I should not have done what I did, but it benefits no one to conflate what I did with inaccurate hyperbole.

[Qutzupalotl]

43. I stand corrected then.

I missed that thread. Wouldn't that have been locked, like, instantly?

[Lerkfish]

45. that thread, and my response to it, was posted not at DU

but elsewhere.


which is kinda besides the point, except that APPARENTLY, someone saw it there, misconstrued my post, and brought their outrage here.

[sniffa]

47. Yes, and similar to HRC

the person embellished.

[Lerkfish]

49. well, that is what I'm trying to correct

unfortunately, the very process of putting people on ignore meant I had no idea this sort of storm was brewing at all.

Yes, it was probably wrong to post my ignore list on another forum, but no, I was not passing that list around and HELL NO I was not suggesting anyone get banned.

[bluedawg12]

94. That's the point Lerkfish- someone saw it there!! Your TRASH

about fellow DU'ers is public.

You posted it on the internet.

You lied that it wasn't your list- on that website- and now- to avoid smearing your friends- you cough it up that it was your list, and admit to it here on DU.

>>APPARENTLY, someone saw it there, misconstrued my post, and brought their outrage here.<<

Post the link to your smear lerkfish and let us all see if they miscontrued it.

Outrage- at being listed on another forum by a member of this forum-- gee, imagine their surprise and OUTRAGE.

So you got caught and now you post this lame business here on DU--I guess you didn't expect to get caught- because it's only the INTER NET- so how many others have seen your smear job?

Post the link to your trash, Lerkfish.

[Lerkfish]

97. whatever, dude.

The purpose of THIS thread is to clear up that apparently other people blamed completely unrelated people for something I posted elsewhere.
I'm pretty clear in the OP what my involvement was.

and I don't consider it a "smear" to say who *I'm* ignoring. If anything, that reflects badly on me. do try to reread my OP, okay? words are important, they mean things.

as far as not expecting to get caught -- as I explained, since I have those people on ignore, I had no idea they would go batshit crazy over it....and I had no clue when they did. I only found out from OTHER people I didn't have on ignore talking about a list.

and you know why I can't post the link. And you know why you're trying to get me to -- to get me tombstoned. whatever, dude. I was trying to do the right thing and not let innnocent people get the blame for something I did.

If you can't fathom that, I suggest you do a little soul searching...

[JuniperLea]

145. Egads! And let's hold off voting for Prom Queen until when exactly?

This is all so childish it's beyond laughable.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

24. ..

:rofl:

[roughsatori]

80. Mocking the mentally ill is juvenile and shameful

We even have a forum here for people with "mental-illness." Most of my mentally ill patients are for Obama. Perhaps you might enjoy taking a cue from the Nazis and gassing the mentally ill while you guffaw.

[Barking Spider]

110. chill out

My mother was mentally ill and institutionalized. I am as sensitive as anyone on this issue. But your "you might enjoy taking a cue from the Nazis and gassing the mentally ill" crack was much more out of line than the posts you were responding to.

[roughsatori]

114. I almost made the mistake of deleting that before posting

But, after thinking about it, I realized that I if murdering the mentally-ill and developmentally-disabled were instituted in the USA. That is as long as it was proposed by the chosen candidates of some GDP-P posters.

If you read GD-P it is obvious that it would not matter if Obama suggested it, or if Hillary suggested it; some of their unthinking GD-P supporters would go right along with the scheme if they thought it meant winning. (Though Obama and Hilary would never to suggest such a grotesque plan. Though Bush* would not have a problem if it helped him personally: Remember his Grandady?)

Group think is rarely healthy. I pray it does not destroy a chance for a Dem as President (hopefully Barack Obama).

This is not to imply that you are like the German's who turned in their relatives who were gay, mentally-ill, developmentally-disabled, Jewish, Communist, or Christian Scientist relatives--but they did. Group think is dangerous. Think of what Orwell wrote on the subject.

I am extremely saddened by your mother' illness. I know from experience how much pain is involved.

[JuniperLea]

147. SNAP! Well done!

Love your sig line, btw! Too true! Mensa allows janitors AND brain surgeons... and they can be mentally equal.

My grandfather dropped out after the third grade to help his mother raise the family after his father died... he ran his own business, worked on heavy equipment, welded, fabricated parts for old machinery... he could fix ANYTHING. He was a freaking genius if ever there was one. He showed me how we are all equal, but some are more equal than others;) He would have been gassed. He was really different.

[K Gardner]

34. ROFL !

[roughsatori]

82. Another DUer who likes mocking people who suffer from mental-illness

I plan to print out as a handout and read this hateful thread to my patients in Group tonight. Eight of them are registered with the Democratic Party and plan to vote for Obama. They deal with mockery, such as yours, everyday. This thread will be used to work with them in developing better coping skills.

My entire family intends to vote for Obama.

[redqueen]

104. What does it have to do with your support for Obama?

You did see the Clinton supporter calling people retards and simpletons, didn't you?

:crazy: <- is that offensive too?

[roughsatori]

113. I never stated that I worked with the Developmentally Disabled

Which is the acceptable term. This is to educate the ignorant people who type "retards" and "simpletons."

It is extraordinarily offensive for any Clinton supporter to use those degrading terms. And yes I did read posts by Clinton supporters using those disgusting terms. If you read all of my posts on this issue you may understand, a bit, why I jumped in here.

As an anti-war Leftist, Obama supporter, with a sister hospitalised with bi-polar disorder as I type...this issue hit a nerve.

In a past primary I was so strongly for Kucinich that I wasted much time attacking Wesley Clark and his supporters that I forgot how important it was for me to point out why Kucinich had my vote. If you think I am lying do a search of my posts. I felt my posts back were destructive during the 2004 Primaries. I went too far attacking Clark and his supporters. I stopped posting at DU since I thought I had become counter-productive. I have just started posting again.

RedQueen, I visit DU everyday. (I started a few weeks after the site was created--but did not register for some time.) I enjoy and agree with most of your posts. But to suggest that, today, because I defended people who live with the stigma of mental-illness, that I should now defend the Developmentally Disabled does not strike me as logical. If you want to take on that task, I can send you some materials, after speaking with a colleague whose specialty is working with people who are labeled "Developmentally-Disabled."

[yardwork]

67. ROTFL!!!!

I just barely swallowed my Jamaican Lemonade in time to save my keyboard!

[roughsatori]

86. Not only uneducated Freepers love jokes about the "mentally-ill"

But, now I see, some DUers find mocking the "mentally-ill" side-splitting amusement. If you had choked on your lemonade and developed a brain injury would that make you a racist-troll? Or is brain injury due to lemonade spewing laughter excluded from your joviality?

Then the other laughing DUers in this thread could mock you with ignorant glee.

Ever wonder how many DU members are "mentally-ill" or have relatives who are "mentally-ill? They are Democratic Party members and deserve respect. Your response indicates you never gave that reality a thought.

[yardwork]

96. Considering that I'm "mentally-ill" myself....I just can't stop laughing at this absurdity.

And your phrase upthread, "Most of my mentally ill patients are for Obama" is a ringing endorsement! Oh my God. This entire episode has given me more laughter than anything I can remember on DU.

[roughsatori]

103. I am happy to have helped you in your recovery

Laughter is a great tool in assisting people. BTW, 4 of the patients are for Hilary and 1 for McCain (he is the most ill, and I am not joking). We spend one session a week on "current affairs," this includes a discussion of politics (if the group goes that way).

Edited to add: The people I work with, in the mentioned therapy group, live in North Philly. They are all African-American. The polls show that to be the Demographic that overwhelmingly is for Obama, as I am.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. exactly

and quite coincidentally it more or less matched everyone I had already put on ignore. Since then I've purged my ignore list and in another amazing coincidence, I still do not see any posts from these same people! The universe is an ever unfolding mystery.

[roughsatori]

89. Can you diagnose "mental-illness? Or complete a GAF scale?

Maybe develop a Clinical Treatment plan? (The word "exactly" in your post indicates that you consider yourself knowledgeable in the mental-health field.)

Or do you just find it a hoot to call people who you disagree with "mentally-ill?

It is ironic that labeling people as "mentally-ill" because they disagree with you is a hallmark of Fascism--and symptomatic of those who truly suffer from "mental-illness."

[roughsatori]

79. You trumpet your ignorance with that misinformed statement.

Your post ignorantly equates all "mentally-ill" people with racists and trolls.

I see you've already received a few shameful positive responses from other thoughtless DU posters.

I am a Certified Clinical Supervisor. I train staff and work with students. I work with individual clients and facilitate group for the "chronically-mentally ill" in Philadelphia. I volunteer time teaching writing and poetry in prisons. Most of my inner city clients are African-American, Democrats who are for Obama. Your words are an insult to them all.

According to your sentence they are all "racists," and "trolls." Your post is misinformed at best, hateful at worst.

Mocking the "mentally-ill" is your prerogative. Though that is what I would expect of a Republican cloaking their hate in humor. I am disheartened to find such intellectual dishonesty at DU; it reeks of Freeper speak.

My response is in the hope that those who agree with your insults regarding the "mentally-ill" members of the Democratic party refrain from laughing at the ill and suffering among us. Many of them are members of DU.

They could use some support, not idiotic tirades by fools in the Obama/Hilary DU wars.

[GoneOffShore]

90. Oh, my.

Such concern.

:sarcasm:

[roughsatori]

95. My concern is from having a hospitalized bi-polar sister

and a schizo-affective cousin.

I am a Clinical-Supervisor in the field and am an activist for the dually-diagnosed (substance abuse and mental illness)for 19 years.

If my concern for the mentally-ill compels you to reply with sarcasm, I hope that you never become a psychologist or that no loved one of yours is ever diagnosed with serious mental-illness. It is not a joke.

Perhaps you are a Scientologist and refute all mental-health treatment. If so, I understand your response.

[MethuenProgressive]

88. If this post doesn't earn you a tombstone, nothing will. Ever.

You're officially bulletproof now.

[roughsatori]

92. Thank you for your post

I was wondering if I was the only member who found this post destructive and logically absurd. Do these posters comprehend that they are insulting both Hillary and Obama by labeling them as "mentally-ill."

[Catherina]

106. ! Rofl

:rofl:

[roughsatori]

115. Your Sig line reads "Feminists for Obama"

I could understand your mirth if the post you replied to read: "trolls" and "Racists." But I am confused at the joviality in your reply to a post that includes the "Mentally-Ill."

Then I noticed your signature line: "Feminists for Obama," and my consternation increased.

The term "mentally-ill" includes children, men, women, Hilary Supporters, Obama Supporters, and God Help US Bush* lovers. Since many diagnosed people are mentally ill-woman I can not see how you could feel it accurate to call yourself a "feminist." Women who are in treatment for "mental-illness" are subjected to outdated, sexist testing, and treatment plan development. Funds to remedy this situation are paltry; even less then for males. Psychotropic medications are tested predominantly on white males (just like HIV/AIDS medications). I would hope that a feminists would not chuckle at the sub-standard care and out-dated modalities women in treatment receive.

[Zodiak]

25. LOL...Lerky's ignore list

Probably looks a lot like mine...although I have been cultivating mine for years. Hell, I could have written the OP, had I more skill with the written word.

I ignore for the exact same reasons as you do, and feature more than a few representatives from all divides. I come here for discussion, not to read through the rantings of vapid spammers or overly negative and entrenched fanatics.

Having said that, you should never post your ignore list publicly. Bad things can happen. Bad Lerky!

:spank:

[LWolf]

35. I'm not ignoring you, lol.

I'm likely to ignore both Clinton and Obama on my ballot next month, and either one of them in November, but I'm not ignoring any of their supporters, civil or otherwise.

:hi:

[40ozDonkey]

37. Whatever, S'funny.

Inauguration Day we'll look back and have a laugh.

[Lyric]

44. So you were the one who wrote the

part that mentioned a certain number of posters "targetted (sic) for banning"?

If not, then it probably isn't your list. It might have *started* with your list, but if you didn't write that part, then someone else took your list and edited/added to it to make it a lot more inflammatory.

[Lerkfish]

48. nope, I never mentioned banning at all, in fact, what I was saying is that

my list made my experience posting here more pleasant, by not having to see their posts constantly.
If I was going to try to get them banned (which I couldn't do anyways) there would be no reason to put them on ignore, and to boot, I"d have no way to alert on their posts if I was ignoring them.

[sniffa]

51. That rumor started here

and has been repeated ad-nauseam by the usual suspects, and now too many on DU. Someone got creative.... well, one particular DUer got creative.

[Lerkfish]

53. well, that explains it.

DId they falsely accuse me of trying to get people banned? That would be unfortunate if so.

[sniffa]

50. Sorry, your version of it is most likely not true

I'm looking at the screencap of the original HRC supporter here who started the thread. It was zapped but I still had it open in another tab, so I capped the OP.

If you go to the "other site" you'll see that it's not true there either. The whole targeted to be banned started here. If there are PMs going around including that, it's because someone copied and pasted the original thread, or got that thread from the OP. If it's going around, it's between Hillary supporters and not Obama supporters as I pointed out above the most likely people who would have received this list from a fellow Obama supporter, did not.

[bluedawg12]

85. Post the other website url -let people see for themselves

what fellow DU'ers are spreading around on the inter net.

[Lerkfish]

98. LOL!

you know why they cant.

[Adelante]

54. Thank you for explaining

I didn't see any list, but the hundred threads about it have been a pain in my ass.

It doesn't sound like you should be blamed for anything, though, Lerkfish :hi:

[Lerkfish]

55. no problem, I had no idea of the hundred threads

since they coincidentally were all made by people on my list.
oh, the irony.

[stevenleser]

64. I didnt know about this either. Must be a lot of people on both of our lists...

... This thread by you is the first time I realized that this had become some sort of big hullabaloo (I love that word).

[yardwork]

68. Gee, that suggests that if one had all those posters on ignore, DU would be a pleasanter place....

I just want to know one thing, buddy. Am I on this list?

[stevenleser]

71. DU is more pleasant with the list by far, and as you can see I am responding to you so...

you arent on my list. Cant speak for the other one.

[Lerkfish]

75. nope, not on my list.

if you had read the OP more carefully, I used it based on what people posted.

[JackBeck]

72. Kick.

Let's keep the audacity of truth alive.

[sniffa]

73. .

I <3 u. :hug:

[crankychatter]

74. even your avatar looks evil

mu-ah ha ha

[Lerkfish]

76. hey, Dali was a genius....not sure if he was an evil genius.

:)

[karynnj]

78. Thank you for your honesty

I know that no one sent me a list and I think I've been pretty obvious as an Obama supporter. I have no ignore list now, but have put people on one before - but never more than 5 at a time. All because I found the people offensive and provocative, but had come to realize that they seemed to be posting things to get outraged responses that in anger went further than the responders normally wanted to go. I put them on ignore to keep myself from doing exactly what I thing they wanted to do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. Clinton supporters? Paranoiacs? I never would have thought....

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

83. Clarify: You went out on the internet to another forum and listed DU'ers by handle?

You didn't just generally state you wish Hilary supporters would be gone- or certain of them- you actually listed fellow Democrats and your fellow DU'ers by nick?

Which website did you post those names to- to allow people to see for themselves what it said and who is listed?

[Lerkfish]

99. you're incorrect.

my OP clearly states what I posted and why.

[Major Hogwash]

102. What you did here last night by admitting it was more than was expected. Forget it now.

It was no big deal.
Sometimes things get out of hand, don't sweat the small stuff.

[Crunchy Frog]

139. I'll PM you the link. It's not allowed to be posted on DU.

Any link posted to that site will be deleted ASAP.

[elixir]

84. It sucks to be you.

[Lerkfish]

100. nah, I'm fine with myself, I'm an honest man who doesn't want others to be punished for

something I did, even though I don't consider what I did to be alll that awful.

[MethuenProgressive]

87. Not buying it.

Your posting history contradicts your claims.

[Crunchy Frog]

140. Huh?

You want to keep that massive "conspiracy" alive, don't you? Think you've gotten alot of mileage from it, and want to keep on milking it. :eyes:

[bluedawg12]

91. Lerkfish: Provide the url of where you trashed DU'ers.

>>I was being coy and saying someone gave it to me, to be funny, intending to be like when someone goes to a therapist and says, "Lets say a guy, lets call him Joe...." actually, no one gave it to me, it was my own list.
My point was that all the people on my list, if ignored, would make DU a more pleasant place to post if you weren't a Clinton supporter.<<

That’s not being coy- that’s a lie and a smear from you.

You named nicks of DU’ers- people who may use the same handle on the inter net and have been smeared by your implication and you didn’t have the balls to actually even say it was your list.


>>didn't mean anything more about it than that.
What has happened since, well, It seems a case of extreme paranoic overreaction.<<

That’s your version of how it feels to have a DU’er running around the internet smearing fellow DU’ers- who know nothing about that website and can’t defend theemselves.

You lie and smear and then blame the names you name as being paranoid people?


>>The ironic thing is now they're blaming the Obama people, who had nothing with my list, and who are not passing a list around, to my knowledge.<<

Yep, this is not an apology for your smearing you are re-ingratiating yourself with Obama supporters.

Did you go to that website- which you should provide- and explain how you lied?
That the list was yours?

Hvae you given people on that list that you KarlRove’ed a chance to go there and at least reply?

Or to see how you handled it over there.


List the URL where DU’ers are being trashed by you. Be fair

>>thanks for listening, and I hope the mods leave this up long enough to let at least some people work this out on both sides.<<

I hope the mods consider why you should remain on DU.

I expect the mods of this fourm- if they expect monetary contributions- to show us what you said, give us the link and to address this breach.

Funny, I was just about to donate to this forum today - so I could post on the Hilary supporters site.

I would be crazy to give out info., and give money under these circumstances

[Lerkfish]

101. may I suggest switching to decaf?

your post is the prime example of why this is a tempest in a teapot.

I broke no DU rules whatsoever. and I broke no rules on the other website whatsoever.


but if you continue to intentionally mischaracterize what I said like this, that's on you.

[bluedawg12]

117. post the link Lerkfish! Show us what you wrote. n/t

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

107. What a joke you are. Off to my ignore list with you.

Congratulations. You're number 12 on my list of hopeless agitators.

HRC - Sniper-in-Chief of the politics of hopelessness

[redqueen]

112. Wouldn't it be against the rules to post a link?

[bluedawg12]

118. Lerkfish has named names on another website

let's see what was written, by whom, who else replied what names were added.

[redqueen]

120. So then you do know it's against the rules, but keep squawking about it anyway.

:crazy:

[bluedawg12]

121. So, Lerkfish posted about DU'ers on a prohibited website?

Because the restrictions are for:

Websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites.

Or was it a post on a highly partisan conservative website, in which case it could be linked to, "in the proper context".

"Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context?"


By going to another forum and posting "all the people on my list, if ignored, would make DU a more pleasant place to post if you weren't a Clinton supporter," that appears to be going to another forum for little purpose other than to, "smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground" and specifically people at DU, with an opposing political point of view?


DU Rules:

"Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not post messages that give publicity to websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground. Currently there are only three websites that fall into this category. Their addresses are not listed here because we do not wish to give them publicity. They are easily identified by their bizarre obsession with Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context.

If you would like to know if a particular website is restricted, please contact an administrator."

[redqueen]

122. You can't really be that fricking stupid.

Or maybe you can!

Either way... :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

123. Hey you are violating the rules. n/t

[redqueen]

124. You're hilarious!

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

135. jeez- there's no pleasing you redqueen. And I do so try. LOL. n/t

[bluedawg12]

129. Lerkfish- you violated the spirit of DU .

DU has no control over what you write elsewhere.

I couldn't tell you what rules apply to the other website because you have posted there, and yet won't reveal what was said, where it was posted, who replied, what they said, and what the nature of that other website might have been in the first place, that it harbored people, who, by your own admission:

>on another website, someone else listed a top ten bad list, and in response I posted my own ignore list...actually, no one gave it to me, it was my own list.<

You posted an addendum to a “top 10 bad list”, you added names from DU and YOU made the statement at that time on that web site, that the list did not originate with you, “saying someone gave it to me”.

Then, you were found out and had to admit, here today, that the list did come from you.

The names you posted were DU members, whom you defined as having an opposing political point of view:

>>My point was that all the people on my list, if ignored, would make DU a more pleasant place to post if you weren't a Clinton supporter.<<

By implication, since there are only two Presidential candidates left in the Democratic primary, DU would be a more pleasant place to post if you were an Obama supporter.

You said: all the people on the list, if ignored, would make DU a better place.

Why take that to another forum?

Why actually give a list of names from DU?

What was the purpose of going to another web site and making negative statements about people from DU?

Why would anyone post, what sounds like, a political blacklist of DU’er names and spread such a list on the internet, Lerkfish?

>>What has happened since, well, It seems a case of extreme paranoic overreaction.<<

I don’t think you are accurate in your characterization about how people would feel going to an entirely different forum and seeing their names mentioned in a negative context by a fellow DU’er: “the bad list” the “ignore list”.

It sound like people would be justified in having their feelings hurt.

But you weren’t worried about hurting the feelings of fellow DU’ers as they stumbled upon their handle on another forum, you told us what concerned you:

>>The ironic thing is now they're blaming the Obama people, who had nothing with my list, and who are not passing a list around, to my knowledge.<<

You told us that the DU’ers who found their name posted in a negative context, by you, in another forum were: “a case of extreme paranoic overreaction.”

You then shared your political philosophy:

>>I don't consider myself an Obama person per se, I just really don't like Clinton and Obama is a better choice between those two.<<

Well, that makes you, by your own words, a Sen. Obama supporter, since it’s down to him and Sen. Clinton.

>>so, the keystone cops routine is IF they based their paranoid assumptions on my coy post, they were absolutely wrong.<<

Your “coy” post?

I disagree with your characterization about your stated post, it was not “coy”.

I disagree with your characterization about the reaction people might have felt finding your list of DU names.

Your lack of compassion is stunning.

“Their paranoid assumptions...”

Finding one’s name on another forum, posted by a DU’er about DU’ers, isn’t a paranoid assumption.

It’s a fact. It’s fact based on actions you have admitted to. It’s not coy to post something derogatory on an inter net board, claim it’s not yours, “someone gave it to me.” That is a false statement and by your own admission.

>>I was being coy and saying someone gave it to me...no one gave it to me, it was my own list.<<

It was your own false statement that led to your admission on this thread today, not because you showed any compassion for people you might have hurt, but because you sought to maintain your standing in your political peer group:

>>but if any of this is based on my ONE post elsewhere, I wanted to point out that the Obama people had nothing to do with that whatsoever.<<

So, the people whose names you actually named are, a case of extreme paranoic overreaction but, the others, whom your false statement might have hurt, because by posting a derogatory list and claiming it was not yours, you are correct, you created two targets: the people whose names you named and other Obama supporters who might be caught up in your web, but had nothing to do with it.

Then you go on to justify your list, the list you claimed was not yours, at first:

>>as to who comprised my list: I only put on ignore people that posted things so outrageously negative, or unwilling to discuss their candidate preference in such a way as to engender rational discussion.<<

Well you have a right to your opinion, and you can run around the internet making value judgements about fellow DU’ers and even posting their handles on the inter net.

>>Equally, I assert I have the right to ignore whom I choose, and my opinion was that until Clinton drops out or the convention, I have no patience for the constant slash and burn spamming of DU with nothing substantive other than outright attacks.<<

This is misdirection. If you cared about the quality of threads on DU, running to another board and adding to a top 10 “bad list” helps DU how?

>>There are some posters whom I did NOT ignore who even though I disagree with their choice, they still are able to conduct themselves honorably and discuss actual issues or questions in way that invites discussion instead of dividing DU.<<

That is generous of you. Maybe you can post those somewhere else on the inter net next? :rofl:

>>I recognize that many people may view ME the same way I view those on my list, and that's ok. I respect your right to put me on ignore, and I would even advise that if that is your opinion of me.<<

I wonder, since this is not about your ignore list on DU, it’s about you posting the handles of seeming political opponents on the inter net- I wonder, how you would feel if you ran across your name on another board, quite by accident, and never had a chance to defend yourself? Would you go to that BB as Lerkfish or assume another handle, or just feel kind of badly and avoid going there at all?

If you weren’t found out- where would this stop?

Other forums, or perhaps larger inter net outlets about Clinton supporters? Viral spread of smears about political opposition in the Democratic party?

It’s not about your list, it’s about you going to other forums and bringing your opinions about DU people over there in a derogatory context, where you even name names and also, deprive them of the opportunity to defend themselves.

Perhaps you were hoping to incite people from other forums over here, for the purpose of disrupting this forum and seeking out the targets you named?

Give us the link Lerkfish, so we can see what was said abut DU’ers, your bad/ignore list, what you have gone back to say since you posted this thread and what you were hoping to achieve by engaging in chiming in to a hit list.

>>I know that in the past week, I've created my list, and my blood pressure has dropped considerably, AND I'm not directly antagonizing those people anymore, so there's a benefit to them as well, I think.<<

Your ignore list is your safety valve- so be it. But there is a difference between a DU ignore list for peace of mind and carrying your judgmentalism about fellow DU’ers to another web site and giving their names. That’s just dirty, IMHO.

>>at any rate, my purpose with this thread is NOT to laud ignore lists per se. I just want to clarify a misconception that any might have in the Clinton camp that *IF* they based their concern on *MY* post at another forum, then they should know the actual circumstances of how I posted it, and stop blaming Obama supporters for something they are, to my knowledge, not doing.<<

Of course, that is not at all an apology to who ever found their name in your negative context on another forum and perhaps had been hurt by it.

You came here today to soothe some who might be mistaken for you-and your post elsewhere which has apparently caused some hurt feelings or displeasure, who I can only imagine were shocked to find your hit piece and returned to DU to find out what happened, something you called in an off hand and dismissive way a tempest in a tea pot.

>>If you want to hate me, fine, but I'd feel awful if something I said gets someone else in hot water for no reason.<<

It seems, you would feel awful if a supporter of Sen. Obama was actually blamed for what YOU posted over there and denied.

Those who found your writings were just making a “tempest in a tea pot” and being” extreme paranoics.”

Except for this: you may not have violated a rule of DU, but you must have violated something? Perhaps trust? Perhaps the spirit f DU?

Otherwise, you would not be posting this about getting others “into hot water” would you?

Well, thanks for listening, I am just trying to work this out too, about trust and community and about the possible misuse of the inter net in political debate.

Lerkfish, it is not against any DU rules to post the link to where you have made negative statements about DU’ers- unless it is one of a specified group of RW forums, certainly we can link to other progressive forums.

As a guest of DU, I am interested to learn how we play politics here, how nasty things can turn, and how much of a community this may or may not be.

So, please be fair, provide the link where you posted the name of your addition to the Top 10 bad list.

peace.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. I think you may need a prescription refill on your meds. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

108. Are you trying to get people to go to that "other website"?

lol

[Lerkfish]

111. LOL! nope. I wish to control no one.

this whole thing took on a life of its own without me.

[MethuenProgressive]

116. Charity kick for the DU CYA thread of the week.

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

119. More than one "top ten bad list" has been posted on another fourm

Lerkfish added:

"and in response I posted my own ignore list. I was being coy and saying someone gave it to me... actually, no one gave it to me, it was my own list."

It was a politically motivated black list of DU'ers with a certain political POV.

"My point was that all the people on my list, if ignored, would make DU a more pleasant place to post if you weren't a Clinton supporter."

Post the url whre DU'ers were smearboated, Lerkfish.

[bicentennial_baby]

125. You can stop baiting him anytime now...

You know he can't post the link. jeez...

[bluedawg12]

132. I don't now that. Why? It's a question. jeez/ n/t

[Lerkfish]

149. whomever you're speaking to

has earned the right to be on my ignore list, so, yes indeed, if they are trying to bait me into something, its a futile endeavor at this point.

[stevenleser]

153. Mine too. We really ought to get together on our lists.

;-)

And for the sarcasm/irony challenged, I AM KIDDING, OK?!?!

[MethuenProgressive]

126. If Lerkfish passed his hit list via DU PM, it's a tombstone-y violation.

If I read the rules right.

[bluedawg12]

131. I am not sure, the rules say passing links from RW forums,etc.

I assumed that it was a progressive forum .

It's not the actual names on the hit list, it's the whole notion of another forum in which DU'ers participate after they leave DU and then discuss people from here in a derogatory manner, that concerns me.

Frankly, it's not the actual names on a "political black list" it's the notion that we here at DU not only have a political black list of fellow DU'ers, but that some of us are running around the inter net posting names from here in a negative context.

I hate "political black lists" I know the viral power of the inter net, and I also know that many of us come here and speak openly and freely about our political opinions and that sometimes we can get heated and extreme-ish. LOL. Still, I expected f group loyalty.

If you told me ShrubCo was keeping such a list- well, *yawn*- bad shrub- January is coming. But, I can't comprehend this.

Maybe I was just naive and thought we were a community-- (of sorts, I know, large numbers, many people, anonymous, but still, a freeper ceating a hit list- *yawn*- one of us? Alarm.)

I certainly don't want Lerkfish to violate the rules of DU.


Again the DU rules that I found:

Restrictions on Linking to Other Websites

Do not post messages that give publicity to websites that have little purpose other than to smear, disrupt, or complain about Democratic Underground. Currently there are only three websites that fall into this category. Their addresses are not listed here because we do not wish to give them publicity. They are easily identified by their bizarre obsession with Democratic Underground.

Do not quote or link to bigoted websites, or websites that republish content from bigoted websites. While many of these websites are easily identifiable, some are less obvious at first glance. Please be aware that even some anti-Bush websites also include bigoted content and are therefore not welcome here.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

Members are permitted to link to highly partisan conservative websites, provided that they are doing so in the proper context.

If you would like to know if a particular website is restricted, please contact an administrator.

[MethuenProgressive]

134. there's this:

After a quick read:

Do not use the DU Groups to "rally the troops" to go participate in discussion threads elsewhere on our website, or to likewise encourage members to vote in polls or recommend threads or alert on posts.

But rules are made to be dodged. And this CYA thread is as bogus as any ever posted.

[bluedawg12]

137. MethuenProgressive- thanks- it doesn't seem to apply

as the link in question is presumably a progressive web site link.

[MethuenProgressive]

138. Where did I mention a "link"?

[seaglass]

151. If this is a serious question...it is a progressive board but it can't

be linked to because it does have a forum dedicated to trashing/complaining about DUers in general and by name.

[leftstreet]

136. Technically it's a RW forum pretending to be a progressive one

So you may have a point. But, the OP hasn't linked to it as per the rules of DU. In fact the only post here that names it outright hasn't been deleted.

So maybe the rules have changed.

:shrug:

[tammywammy]

142. And the Admin staff has access to the PMs

So if that had happened I'm sure he would have already been banned.

[Lerkfish]

146. since that didn't happen, I'm safe.

but thanks for your concern.

[Crunchy Frog]

127. Ah, thanks a hell of a lot. For destroying a perfectly beautiful...

hysterical conspiracy theory. And I was just getting so into being accused of something I hadn't done, simply by virtue of being an Obama supporter. All ruined now because of you. x(

[bluedawg12]

133. Now, now, don't be an extreme paranoic. LOL. n/t

[Lerkfish]

143. hey, what can I say. as an aside...

its hilarious I started a ruckus I didn't even intend to.

when I try to actually start a ruckus, nothing happens.

irony.

[bigtree]

144. YOu! JUdas!

Actually, I never looked for, or, saw the list . . . so . . .

[Lerkfish]

148. here's a link with some valuable advice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=334&topic_id=10581&mesg_id=10581

it appears to be coordinating efforts within the Hillary supporters group to go out and do mass alerts. But things can be misconstrued, of course, which is sort of the whole point of this thread.




but from the post, here are some important points:

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.


If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

[bhikkhu]

150. "Leading the news tonight, the Ignoregate debacle drags on at DU..."

[Lerkfish]

152. good point. I think this thread has outlived its usefulness

its ok with me to lock it.

[stevenleser]

154. Are you kidding? This is the first -gate I have been a part of and I'm not sure if I should be

enjoying it or wishing it away...