People, we need to talk again.

[TayTay]

We are going to get another notice soon from Skinner about all the vitriol. I understand that it's frustrating to have people attacking JK. I understand that people want to defend and 'bring out the truth' on the certain disrupters among us. But geez, come on, there is a way to do this and a way not to do this. Some of the recent posts have been too acidic. Skinner is going to ask again if there is a concerted attack strategy formulated in this group to go out and 'get' other people. We have to do better than this.

We need to talk about not becoming what we say we dislike. There has to be a way not to become the thing you hate. (Disrupters.)

[MH1]

1. Thanks for the heads up.

I do think we have to be careful to respect the rules of the site (as they are applied by the mods), even when we disagree with certain aspects of the handling of certain, um, situations.

There are ways we can get the truth out without being perceived as attacking others.


Edited to clarify. I think many times a post can be perceived as "attacking" by a person who feels they are the "target" of it, yet it wasn't really intended that way. I also am not saying that anyone here is intentionally "attacking" anyone else. Just that we have to realize that perceptions can differ.

[TayTay]

2. It is possible to support someone.

It is also possible to have disagreements with someone who supported someone else. But that doesn't make this person your enemy or mean that they should be attacked.

There are ways to argue and ways not to argue a point. Personal attacks, or attacks written that can easily be read as personal regardless of original intent, are not the way to go. They just aren't. What possible good do they do except draw out a fight that cannot be won?

[ProSense]

3. I admit to being a culprit in going after Kerry detractors, but

I never resort to vitriol in the general forums. I made a mistake of posting links to someone's previous comments against the rules. Now I know.

You know if we just ignored all the crap posted in the other forums about Kerry, this place to an unsuspecting visitor would look like the SBVT/wingnut residence. What's the point? I don't want GD to become off limits to me, and it would if the environment, including the positive threads, became polluted with JK lies. They are very adamant out there. I try to avoid the blatantly obvious threads designed purely for Kerry bashing. I will continue to defend him in the positive threads that are infiltrated by attackers.

In the most recent thread I posted to I have concerns: How does someone enter the JK forum and perceive that he/she is being personally attacked in a post that wasn't designed as an attack? The post was a response to an attack and was designed to facilitate a discussion. So,why would that person then bring up the JK forum in GD-P by insinuating that Kerry supporters are in the practice here of attacking others? That's false and the JK forum is not a topic for general discussion.

Now, I see the point about vitriol, and in some instances it's best to just cut the discussion. I'm definitely guilty of not adhering to the latter. It's a frustrating thing.

I realize this is a defensive statement, but I welcome your thought (critical are otherwise). Thanks for the alert TayTay.

[whometense]

4. I haven't weighed in because

I have the same question: How does someone enter the JK forum and perceive that he/she is being personally attacked in a post that wasn't designed as an attack? The post was a response to an attack and was designed to facilitate a discussion. So,why would that person then bring up the JK forum in GD-P by insinuating that Kerry supporters are in the practice here of attacking others? That's false and the JK forum is not a topic for general discussion.

Are we talking about "out there" or a particular thread "in here"? They are two separate issues, I think. This is the second time - in here - I've been taken aback by someone popping into a thread here to squawk about something. Both times I thought the intrusion was uncalled for. But my tendency is to ignore, not because of any lofty moral stance but more because I don't really enjoy the fight. I'm not sure how to respond to this, because though I think we need to keep things civil, the appearance in our living room of outside hostility is - well - provocative.

[TayTay]

6. Who are you responding to and to serve what end?

There are disrupters in the DU forums. There are also legitimate people who disagree with you. It is hard to know the difference. One way to tell is to see if someone offers the peace branch and offers to try and find common ground and a way to stop fighting. They might not be disrupters just people of good will who disagree with you, sometimes strongly. There are also nutballs out there who argue crazy things. They never offer to come to common ground, they just push their view. There is a difference.

We have to play nice with others as well. I mean, we have been warned once on this. That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or your ideas. But it does mean that someone else will also take things the wrong way, feel attacked and feel that they are being targeted by the same group of people all the time. (I mean come on, this is just common sense.) There has to be a better way to do this.

We will never come to a 100% eye-to-eye agreement with some other people. That's just politics. If we could all agree on everything we wouldn't need politics at all. I understand that.

At some point a sprited defense based on facts becomes an accusatory series of posts that never takes anything at face value and looks paranoid. (Quite frankly.) The argument that 'other people do it too' is one that, frankly, that is off. We are going to turn off the very people we hope to engage in talks.

[ProSense]

9. I agree, and I read the posts

in the thread here in that person's defense. And left it at that. Since I've never had any other exchange with that person, maybe I should have ignored also the GD-P insinuation that the JK forum is a place where his supporters engage in frequent attack on others.

My point wasn't that other people do it too. Like I said, I avoid the threads blatantly designed to bash Kerry. I don't have a problem correcting a false statement about Kerry in a positive thread.

I don't believe I've launched a personal attack on anyone. The link incident was against the rules, but I believed I was simply quoting the person. It was against the rules, so I understand that. I don't think my post in defense of Kerry can be construed as personal attacks. Now if I'm wrong please let me know.

In some cases, cutting off the discussion maybe best.

[TayTay]

12. Sometimes you take something to PM

and try to settle your differences that way. Doing it publicly isn't the right way. Again, some of this comes about because writing is an imprecise art form. Misunderstandings are just one of the pit falls of going on line.

And I am NOT calling anyone out on being personal. That goes both ways. (That's the point of this whole thread.) I want a vigorous defense, and I also want to recognize when to cut off talks with real disrupters.

[ProSense]

18. PMs do serve a purpose

but, I'm not going to PM a disrupter. And even in the event of the link, that person was a disrupter.

This person who came into the forum was turned off by the incorrect presumption he/she made to begin with. The first few responses shows that clearly. I understand perception, but I don't understand when someone is trying to explain something in a rationale way, and the other person continues to go down the bitter path without consideration to reason. I don't understand. There were attempts to appease, the person was appreciative and moved on to another post to spew more accusations.

Now a PM could have served a purpose in pointing out that the incident in the JK forum should never have been brought up in the GD-P thread.

Still, given how the current discussion ended, the poster obviously has issues with this forum.

[karynnj]

5. I can see what you mean and from the thread

it does look like we pushed a Kerry neutral Dean supporter in the wrong direction.

That thread in reality was flamebait - there has to be a way that we can handle it. As one who may have been too acidic, I will go back to the other thread here (the Boston Herald editorial about violence) and re-read it and realize that it could pertain to virtual verbal violence. I honestly think it might be good guidance - is that appropriate penance? (In saying this I am being serious and am not trivializing the message there.)

[TayTay]

7. It's not about penance

(or I need to do some too, oh geez.) It's about trying to strike a balance. That balance means we get to speak out strongly, but at the same time not cross that line to where we look bad and with reason.

Flamebait is an eternal part of the web. It will never go away. Writing is to imprecise an art. I don't want to stop anyone from writing whatever they want, I just want people to stop and think about what they doing. We don't need to be a sort of JK 'Death Squad' out there. (And we are not, but there are swarming instances in certain threads that are unappealing.) I also don't want the same occurences of names to automatically shut out debate on DU. That could happen. People could see certain names and then just quit the thread. It can happen both ways on DU.

Yes this is a 'safe haven.' But it is not a prison that keeps things both out and in. (DU is designed for debate. There will be disagreements all over the place, even here.) Surely we are strong enough in belief and sense of self to take a few questions, even harsh questions.

[Dr Ron]

30. Sure we can take harsh questions

"Yes this is a 'safe haven.' But it is not a prison that keeps things both out and in. (DU is designed for debate. There will be disagreements all over the place, even here.) Surely we are strong enough in belief and sense of self to take a few questions, even harsh questions."

The point is that MF didn't come to ask questions or debate sensibly.

It would be somewhat tacky for MF to come here to debate, but if she just wanted to argue the issues with facts that would be one thing. She did the opposite. She repeatedly claimed that I was lying, but offered no counter evidence (and didn't even say specifically what I was lying about). It was purely that anything critical of Dean is a lie.

It is also MF who keeps making wild claims that I'm using my blog to start an ant-Dean campaign, despite being told repeatedly by myself and others that this is not the case.

We should not be appologetic about crossing any line. In this case it is MF who turned a serious discussion about items of historical fact which relate to a current book (and arguments being echoed in other blog posts) into a flame war.

[wisteria]

8. Our defense of Kerry is not a consorted effort. We do not come in

here and ask for reinforcements for out there, if we see a post and it is obviously designed to stir up old wounds and unfairly attacks Kerry, well,I do not see our defense as being vitriol.if you refer to the Dewey/Truman post, it was posted as such that it was impossible to defend Kerry without bring up Dean's weak points. If I call a post stupid, I refer to the comments/ideas laid out in the post and I am posting my opinion just as the poster is posting theirs. My objective is to make others skimming through the postings aware of my observations and opinions in as few words as possible. Perhaps, I am a little thick, but I do not really understand what you are referring to. Can you provide an example or two?

[TayTay]

11. Not thick at all.

This is screed number 1,456,785 that sometimes DU threads suck. Some posters on DU suck a whole lot. They post things that are rude, thoughtless, content-free and awful. Stipulated.

The Powers That Be at DU do not want these threads anymore than we do. They are needlessly divisive. Is there a way to argue vehemently for a point of view and yet not wind up in the ditch making accusations of others that are not really what we want to say? We are all so tired of the vitriol. So, so tired of it and how useless and foolish it is.

Politics, by it's very nature, attracts disagreement. Sometimes the arguments get so 'hot and heavy' that people say things that are ill-considered. The comments are also divisive. There has to be a better way. How many people will look at that Dewey thread and just turn it off. It's become a content-free thing. I don't want to be thought of as 'one of those people' who are impossible to get along with and that people start to skip my posts because I am primarily viewed as overly defensive. I just don't. Why bother to post here at DU at all if that is the situation?

Of course other people sometimes suck. But sometimes these arguments get out of hand and negative. And we don't own this space, DU does. We can be better netizens, even if others aren't. (This does not mean you don't argue vehemently your point of view. Of course you should. But there has to be a better way.)

[Dr Ron]

32. Agree--it is MF who stirred things up in both cases

It was MF who turned a calm discussion into a vitriolic discussion here.

I initially ignored the Dewey/Truman post as flame bate until I found here that MF was making false claims about me there. It was MF's false claims that made that thread much more vitriolic.

[Dr Ron]

40. consorted efforts

It is sad if we are the ones being accused of making consorted attacks considering that, dating back to the early days of the Kerry blog, we have been subjected to organized attacks from Dean supporters. (And of course I mean some Dean supporters and realize that many Dean supporters had nothing to do with this, and many were opposed to such activities).

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Since this is obviously intended at least partially at me

I can't say I particularly regret any posts I've made here in the past few days. The intruder into our forum was just that; an intruder. The poster in question was not an innocent, neutral bystander troubled by that thread - I have had many interactions with said poster before, and this was just the latest in a string of dishonest and underhanded attempts to stifle ANY debate or questioning of a particular Democrat of whom she permits NO criticism. I tend to leave her alone in GD, but if she comes in here with her heavy-handed Gestapo tactics to try to smother debate, she WILL get a heated response from me.

As far as the latest kerfuffle in GD, well, that post was beyond inane and I don't feel my response was out of order. I'm sorry, but any poster comparing Kerry to the Republican candidate Dewey is more than stupid, and merits any derisive reply I can muster. That thread wasn't an honest call for debate but just more perpetuation of the utter inability of partisans of a certain Democratic primary candidate to deal honestly with the lessons of the primary. I don't believe we should for a moment hold their hands and play along with their stupid point-the-finger blame games, and I say that respect towards their candidate and towards those who managed to support him without losing all sense of perspective. As long as they continue to cook up wild, baseless theories about how they and their candidate had NO role in losing the primary and it was ALL evil Kerry/the DLC/the DNC/the media's fault, there will NEVER be a productive dialogue. And THAT'S the truth.

Edit: And the fact that a certain poster comes in here, disrupts, and then uses that experience to whine in GD about what bad people WE are doesn't give us one damn thing to apologize for. Can you imagine going over to the DFA group, throwing a few bombs, and then *whining* in GD that they all pounced on you for being a disruptor? The poster in question, I repeat, is not an honest person who merely wants a debate and civility. I refuse to apologize for not tolerating her intrusion, and her subsequent attempt to pin it on us is just yet more indication of her inability to tolerate ANY dissenting opinion ANYWHERE on DU about a certain Democrat.

[TayTay]

13. WEL that is the point

The title of that thread was a set up. The person who wrote that knew what they were doing. It was purposeful flamebait and intended to disrupt. There was another one today that was yet another variation on the endless, 'We didn't fight hard enough last time' thing that has been beaten to death in DU. We have answers to the basic questions involved in threads like this. We really do. (We are busy little researchers over here and have answers to most of the common complaints.)

What got accomplished in that Dewey thread? People who are neutral/friendly to JK probably never opened the thing cuz it's obvious flamebait. People who are neutral to JK probably gave it a pass as well, cuz it's flamebait. You are guaranteed to be arguing with the folks who don't like Jk in there. So, the thread goes over 100+ posts and does nothing.

Maybe there were a few eyeballs in there that were persuadable and that were open to seeing a different side. They probably got two or three posts in and left. (I do that with most posts on DU.) So, what got accomplished? (And at what risk. We have been warned about this before.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. And that's why I generally avoid GD like the plague

But if we all avoided GD, like someone above said, it would start to resemble FR or the SBVT in its attitudes about Kerry. The mods do not usually delete borderline flamebait threads like that unless they devolve into a true flamefest, so what can you do?

And I just reread that thread this morning, and reemphasize what I said about our invader. I have never encountered a more disingenuous, duplicitous, sleazy, dishonest poster in my entire life. She reeks of utter hypocrisy.

[JI7]

58. isn't that the fucking truth

phony ass whore posts on site that regularly bashes democrats and comes on complaining about us for defending JK against paid shills like KOS.

[madfloridian]

60. My hubby, daughter and I donated almost a thousand to the Kerry campaign.

Am I the one you are referring to as an invader?

I figure since most of this post is about me, I would like to clarify that point. From March 04 to November 04 we worked for Kerry locally.

I hope you are speaking of some other invader. I really don't think I am that bad.

And where do we draw the line on how one can defend oneself? How much did one have to donate to John Kerry's campaign to make one able to defend.

That said, I think it may be hopeless to present one's case.

[JI7]

61. you need to stop coming to this forum

you seriously do not get it. this all started with Ron replying to that whore KOS' bashing of Kerry which you took issue with. you refuse to see anything wrong with Kos bashing Kerry. you only have problems when it's Dean who is being criticized or even just disagreement of opinion.

[Dr Ron]

62. It's not about whether you supported Kerry

While I know the issue has come up, this was a side issue. Whether or not you supported Kerry isn't the question. The problem is that you took a serious discussion which, while containing some criticism of Dean, was not really a Dean bashing thread, and turned it into a rather unrulely thread. You repeatedly claimed I was lying and fabricated an untrue story that I was using a blog to launch an anti-Dean campaign. You not only caused such problem here, but today I discovered that you did the same on a more public thread.

And, by the way, I also contributed around $1000 to the Dean campaign (and would have donated more but I stopped my contributions after the Medicare issue came up).

[kerrygoddess]

63. As Ron pointed out below --

It's not about that and neither was Ron's post about what you came here and insinuated it was about. You also refered to the Democratic Daily as a blog that attacks Dean -- I can assure you categorically it IS NOT. The Democratic Daily is my blog and Ron is a co-writer there. We have a policy not to attack Dems there, and if you read through our blog you will find we are one of the most peaceful commonsense liberal blogs around.

Ron gave his perspective disputing something that Kos wrote about the primaries, MadFloridian and his perspective is that of someone who was an early Dean supporter who switched to Kerry before the primaries started. I remember the first day day Ron came to the Kerry blog asking questions about Kerry's stance on Medicare. I responded to him - I gave him information, that has already been documented here in Ron's thread here.

I don't feel this should have been an issue here. Ron is entitled to his opinion as someone who was involved with both Dean's campaign and then Kerry's. I also disagree with Kos's take on the primaries. I was involved with Kerry's campaign from Summer 03 and I knew things that many people did not know. Kerry was well prepared on the ground in Iowa and NH, it was all under the radar.

That said, maybe it would have been a less heated conversation about this if you had posted your disagreement with Ron on The Democratic Daily, where Ron's posted originated from.

I'm sorry this has been such a heated discussion here, it is the Kerry Forum, for Kerry supporters and everyone who posts here are actively involved with supporting Kerry all the time.

Peace!

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. Is this the John Kerry Forum

especially provided for Kerry supporters ?

The rules:

The purpose of the new DU Groups is to provide like-minded people with places where they can discuss issues free from disruption from those who disagree. The theory was that if we provided members with "safe zones" where you were not being forced to constantly defend yourselves, you might not feel quite so victimized by DU, and you might not feel the need to be constantly fighting with other people.

We still think the theory is sound. But it appears that it was not perfect. It has already become apparent that providing people with mini echo-chambers can have the opposite effect of what we intended. A few members have taken the candidate supporters' groups as an open invitation to fire up the old primary wars, and focus on the negative rather than the positive. It would be a real shame if these groups served as a catalyst to re-ignite the antagonism from the primary, and we hope everyone will make an effort to keep that from happening.

There is already a lot of great stuff being posted in these candidate groups. We believe that these groups are a good and useful addition to DU. Let's not undermine their purpose by falling back into old habits.

Thank you for doing what you can to make this idea a success.

IMO we have again been disrupted, rather the individual supports Kerry a little or not, that person still has an agenda of his/her own.

The discussion was about Kos, and everyone knows or has their own feelings on him throughout his blog history, and anyone should know that a certain candidate's name will come up, when Kos throws out his crap. There is no way the primaries cannot be bypassed it is needed for factual responses.

What I disagree with is that we were disrupted because there is a certain person who spies on this forum, and when he/she doesn't like what he/she is reading he/she jumps in. This is not the first time this has happened, and won't be the last, and to me that is sad and this forum is not a "safe zone" as put in the rules.

Just my 2 cents.

[karynnj]

16. The problem is that we were treading very close to

what is described in the second paragraph sited.

"We still think the theory is sound. But it appears that it was not perfect. It has already become apparent that providing people with mini echo-chambers can have the opposite effect of what we intended. A few members have taken the candidate supporters' groups as an open invitation to fire up the old primary wars, and focus on the negative rather than the positive. It would be a real shame if these groups served as a catalyst to re-ignite the antagonism from the primary, and we hope everyone will make an effort to keep that from happening."

The problem is that the intent was to discuss a current book that could hurt the perception of Senator Kerry. Without giving examples and back up for what is said, there is no way to discuss this. Some of the information provided by the OP was stuff I didn't know - and they do provide information to refute people repeating Kos lies. In the past, stuff from Kos does move to DU.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. But I think we are well within our rights to discuss and refute smears

From Kos, et al. No one had a problem with the thread until *someone* burst in like the STASI and tried to prosecute us for our thoughtcrime.

[TayTay]

19. We are within our rights to do that.

It is what we do and what the group exists for. That is not in question. That is the express purpose this group serves within DU.

It is the other stuff that is more difficult. WEL, other people can see us as the bad guys and as 'ganging up' on others. (I know we don't see it this way, but back away for a second and look dispassionately. It is possible to see someone complaining about that behavior and a neutral party saying they have a case.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. Well

The poster in question ALWAYS sees everyone who doesn't agree with her - or who challenges her ridiculous assumptions - as "ganging up on her." Her paranoia is notorious and on display in EVERY SINGLE THREAD in which she is challenged, whether by a Kerry person or not. I just have zero sympathy for her - I could be persuaded that we might have been too harsh if this poster didn't have a history of posting flamebait and then accusing those who disagree of "trying to silence her" or "persecuting her" or "ganging up on her" - but she does, and her opinion is therefore pretty worthless to me.

[Dr Ron]

23. Bursting in was definately the problem

Take away that person's posts, and the responses, and the tone of the whole thread would have been much different.

Plus the nature of her criticism didn't help matters. If she wanted to post facts to back her case, it would be somewhat undesireable to bring such debates to a Kerry forum, but we could have handled it. However her attacks were that 1) we shouldn't say anything bad at all about Dean even in the Kerry forum (even though far worse is written about Kerry in GD virtually every day) and 2) she repeatedly claimed that what I said was half truths and lies without presenting a single example of anything untrue.

[fedupinBushcountry]

24. The problem with that 2nd paragraph

is that it was originally stated on Nov. 23, 2004, right after this forum was started. I don't know why it was put on, I did not read any candidates forums at that time, and so close after the election, I can imagine it was probably quite harsh, but on what forums, I do not know.

We are long past the primaries, but a lot was learned from the primaries, and we should be able to discuss, especially when a person such as Kos is involved in that discussion. I knew what was happening daily through the major months of the primaries starting in Aug. '03 , I also know exactly when Dr. Ron came to the Kerry blog and was a Dean supporter, but was troubled by some of Dean's stances on his field (Doctor) and medicare. I know for a fact KG and others gave Ron all the info and it was Ron who made up his own mind through thoughtful discussion and many facts. I may add that many at DFA where very angry at him, for he tried to have a thoughtful discussion there, but was treated like dirt. He was proof that thoughtful discussion backed up by facts could bring people to a different decision.

[Dr Ron]

26. Second paragraph definately a problem

I already commented on this in another post here so I'll just briefly restate that it makes little sense to go after comments in the Kerry forum critical of Dean (especially when this was really an attack on Kos's book and not Dean specifically) but to allow Kerry bashing on a daily basis in GD. (This was also a repost from Democratic Daily. My next post to mention Dean was quoting Dean specifically as opposed to being on Kos and was pro-Dean with respect to his current comments on Abramoff).

One other "historical footnote" on the Medicare issue. When I first started researching this, it was as a Dean supporter in Doctors for Dean working to debunk the attacks on Dean which came up in the debates. However, during such research I found that the attacks were actually valid. Plus I found that the responses the campaign was putting out were untrue. (I have links to two key newspaper articles on this in the original post at Democratic Daily, and there is also more information available backing this up).

[Dr Ron]

25. Not ok in Kerry forum but ok in GD?

This is a rather strange intepretation of the rules if it opposes even discussion of these issues.

The old primary battles come up in anti-Kerry threads in GD virtually every day. By this logic, would it have been more in line with the rules to post the Kos criticism (since it contained criticism of Dean going back to the primaries) in GD as opposed to in the Kerry group?

"Without giving examples and back up for what is said, there is no way to discuss this"

This was particularly true in this case. Kos's whole claim was that opponents of Dean had no valid criticism and all opposition to Dean was based upon smears. The only way to refute this is to cite the actual issues upon which people opposed Dean.

Also note that the most critical comments on Dean in the post came from two different newspaper columns by liberal columnists. Or are we also not allowed to quote prominent liberal columnists from major newspapers if the criticize Dean in the Kerry forum (while people can quote far less prominent writers at will attacking Kerry in GD)?

[ProSense]

21. Exactly!

Look at the posts on page one of this forum. Is it okay for someone to come in an admonish us for any of these posts? I'm pretty sure I can engage someone in an open discussion, but it will be futile if the person comes here with an agenda not an open mind.

In an open discussion, it's still possible to disagree after all the facts are laid out, when an debate ends up in a dead heat, each person can stake out opposing positions and leave it at that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. Exactly

The poster in question was not looking for honest debate or answers - she has harbored this agenda for as long as I've been on DU. The Kerry forum is not a welcoming place for those who have their own anti-Kerry agendas, and the DU rules back us up on that. If she tries to squeal to the mods, it can be very clearly pointed out that she started the whole mess with her intrusion. Since we were not calling her or any DUers out in that thread before she arrived, I would like to think Skinner would be fair enough to see that we were instigating nothing.

[Dr Ron]

27. Checked MF Comments--We Should Not Be Defensive on This

I just read MF's dishonest account of what transpired in the Kerry-bashing thread and note that she mischaracterized what transpired here. We should not be defensive on this.

Some key points:

1) The post was a repost of a review from Democratic Daily of Kos's comments on his book on the primaries. It was certainly an anti-Kos post, but not an attack on Dean as she claims. It was her intrusion here which made this a heated thread. Prior to her intrusion it was calm and had balanced comments on Dean.

2) She claims that I'm waging a war against Dean on my blog. Democratic Daily has not been waging a war on Dean. Many of my posts there on Dean have been supportive of him, and I certainly support his efforts as DNC Chair. I happened to have one Dean post following the Kos post, and it was in agreement with Dean and led to some pro-Dean comments there. Hardly what we would be doing if the intent was to wage a war against Dean. She was told by myself and others repeatedly that the intent was not to attack Dean.

3)Interesting that, after distorting the truth, she writes, "You are in effect calling me a liar, and I don't like it." Part of the way she inflamed the situation was by posting more than once that I was lying about Dean. This is despite the fact that I was quoting newspaper accounts, and she had absolutely no facts to back up her accusations or contradict my facts.

4)I placed the copy of the Democratic Daily post here in the Kerry group as opposed to GD in order to avoid it turning into a heated debate and reviving the Kerry vs. Dean wars. It would make no sense to prohibit such discussion here while anti-Kerry thread are present almost daily in GD, and it would make no sense to have policies which would encourage having posts such as mine in GD as opposed to in the Kerry forum where the risk of argument is reduced.

[Dr Ron]

29. Respose posted to MF

This was posted in response to a comment of her's claiming I'm using my blog to wage a campaign against Dean:


We made it clear to you repeatedly that this was not an anti-Dean post.

It was a repost from the Democratic Daily reviewing a section from Kos's book. It was highly critical of Kos and reviewed the facts from the primary campaign to show this, but I also made it clear that the intent was not to rewage the Dean vs. Kerry battles.

Despite being repeatedly told this, you have claimed several times that I'm using my blog to start to wage a campaign against Dean. As I told you before, this is untrue. The Democratic Daily does not oppose Dean. I support his efforts as DNC Chair and hope for his success in this and in future endeavors. I have had many blog posts in support of Dean. I had one Dean post after the Kos post which was supportive of Dean and which led to some pro-Dean comments on Democratic Daily. This is hardly what I would do if I was starting a campaign against Dean.

I am far more concerned with issues than personalities. If I disagree with Dean on specific issues, I may discuss this (especially since it was relevant to my review of Kos's book). I will also state when I agree with Dean on the issues. Similarly I have sometimes stated disagreements with Kerry on some issues, but nobody has ever considered this to be a sign that I opposed Kerry or was waging a campaign against him.

[kerrygoddess]

37. Um...

Did I miss something?

[Dr Ron]

38. You missed a lot

I already responded with a brief recap to Sandy. At least that's the story from my perspective. Apparently things went further after the person who intruded here started to flame us in another thread in GD. I take it from TayTay's post that Skinner got involved and certainly resent any implication that any of us here are at fault. It was a lone Dean supporter who caused things to get out of control both here and in a more public thread.

[kerrygoddess]

50. I'm glad I missed this

Is this the same person who intruded in here a while back and stirred up trouble or someone else. What happened to this being the Kerry Forum for Kerry supporters.

[Mass]

28. I tend to agree with you. There are to be better ways to deal with these

issues.

However, I have to say I have not found a solution, which is why I am staying as far as possible from GD. Some threads are so clearly flamebait (Dewey thread for example) and there is very little to be won in pushing them up by answering. Moderators do not want to lock the threads, so the best way is clearly to lock the threads ourselves by ignoring them.

I am trying to do so, but it is really hard and I can understand some people fall for it. Put these people on your ignore list. Alert, but do not answer. It is useless. (and I just fell for it once again a few minutes ago - I have trouble with outright lies).

[wisteria]

34. I post on those threads for one reason only -to balance out the

lies. I am always concerned that some people read those posts and believe that dribble. By not countering it and leaving it unchallenged it could be misinterpreted and accepted as the truth.

[sandnsea]

31. What happen??

I missed it. :dunce: I want to focus on getting a DUer watching the machines in every county where we've got a good shot at picking up a House seat. To some extent, Senator Kerry can take care of himself. Let's stop fighting about 2004 and focus on gathering evidence for 2006, that's what I think.

[Dr Ron]

33. A brief recap

It wasn't us fighting about 2004 as much as a Dean supporter coming here to pick a fight.

Kos had a post with a section of his book in which he claimed that Dean was totally clean and all opposition to Dean was based upon rhetoric and scare tactics. I responded with a post at Democratic Daily:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1569

The review is definately anti-Kos, and in order to dispute Kos I gave a run down of real reasons many opposed Dean and may have voted for Kerry. The most critical things on Dean were actually quotes from two liberal columnists.

Initially it was a calm discussion which would not be considered Dean bashing unless someone thinks that anything critical of Dean is unfair. Then a Dean supporter came in and claimed I was lying (without offering any counter evidence) and was using by blog to wage an anti-Dean campaign. (By coincidence, between the time my anti-Kos item was posted and she made this claim, I had one Dean post at Democratic Daily which was pro-Dean regarding his statement on Abramoff).

Basically she took one blog post reviewing a book and made a huge thing out of it, claiming both here and, as I found out today in GD, that I'm launching an anti-Dean campaign. We did not start out fighting about 2004, but when Kos puts out a book with revisionist history it is worth an isolated blog post to dispute.

[sandnsea]

39. I see now

That's what ignore is for. I think it's against the rules for me to say any more than that. I thought we were done flogging 2004, but with the new Carville book and now Kos, guess not.

[Dr Ron]

41. It will never totally end

To a certain degree it shouldn't end totally. How a candidate ran a campaign in 2004 is one (and only one) factor to consider if they should run again. It is inevitable that such discussion continue, so we should correct inaccurate information, especially in cases where it is designed to harm the chances of a future Kerry run. Even if it didn't pertain to future races, the 2004 campaign was a big thing for many of us and we should be able to calmly discuss it if we desire.

I'm afraid the "ignore" command is not a solution. If someone came in here and said you were lying, would you really just ignore them (and allow them to continue to post about you) or would you respond? Perhaps what we do need is a way to keep certain people from posting in individual candidate forums if they have a history of disruptive behavior.

[sandnsea]

48. Uhm, well,

in regards to that particular person, I generally wouldn't know. I only recently removed the ignore option for one particular poster, and will need to put it back shortly I imagine. Writing a blog post is one thing I suppose, much beyond that just gives them air.

[karynnj]

54. The Carville/Begala book

will likely be considered sour grapes. They didn't like Kerry to begin with and then arrogantly seemed to want to play a big part in his campaign because he was the candidate. What is strange is that their egos were so big they seemed to have never really tried to understand Kerry - and were more intent in saying how he wasn't Bill Clinton. (any deviation from Bill was counted a s a negative) and seemed to feel that 1992 was the only perfect campaign ever run. It is also blatantly obvious that they want Hillary and assume they will run her campaign.

(They ignore that Bush 1 was at less than 40 % popularity, was constantly treated badly by the press (how many times did they tell us he vomited in Japan), with an unusually strong 3rd party candidate who targeted Bush (not Clinton) and then convinced the country that he (Perot) was nuts. In these circumstances, having an attractive candidate win 42% of the vote isn't anything to brag of. The vaunted war room had it easier as Clinton was hit with one thing at a time, in most cases they were issues they prepared for and there was a media who loved him anyway.

[TayTay]

55. True, true, true

Plus the Democrats had Congress (both houses) and the Right Wing Noise Machine didn't have as much control as it has today and so forth. '92 was a very interesting race, but Clinton also caught some breaks. (And he also didn't rule as a minority President when he came to power and botched a lot of things. Sigh! He got rolled so bad at first it was embarassing. Alot of the wonderful and unique gifts that Bill Clinton had were squandered. Sigh! Billy didn't live up to his potential.)

Carville and Begala and the whole group that ran that campaign want all the cookies to themselves. Well, they can't have any more cookes because they aren't team players and don't listen and don't play well with others. They need to go into the corner and think about what they did in '04 and write 'I'm sorry for what I did and didn't do for John Kerry' 1,000 times on the blackboard and then I might let them back into my good graces.

[Dr Ron]

56. Carville/Begala

I don't know much about their book, but I have two general thoughts on them with regards to the Kerry campaign:

1) Didn't they push for a repeat of running on the economy (It's the Economy Stupid, once again)? If so, they were wrong. National security was far more important this time.

2) Looking back at their War Room from when Clinton ran--there might be something for Kerry to learn from them there. He could have done a better job at times responding to attacks (and I bet he'll do better at this in 2008).

[blm]

42. I agree the reply was overly-sensitive, but I have tried to point out that

very sensitive people don't always read things exactly as written. I am not particularly sensitive and still have misread postings read in haste.

I just want to stress that the poster is very sincere and sometimes devotion to Dean as her inspirational source may cause her to read posts about him more sensitively than they were written.

But, once you have history of interacting with the poster, it's easier to understand that her earnestness drives many of the replies.

She has never been motivated to merely attack Kerry. Never. And my opinion comes after 3 yrs of interaction with mf. Through the worst of the primary season till now.

Trust this - if anyone can recognize those foes intent on damaging Kerry here at DU, it's me. This poster is NOT one of them.

[MH1]

43. Thank you.

I have had a similar experience with mf but mine is much shorter. It means more that you have seen this over 3 years.

And I want to ditto that

I am not particularly sensitive and still have misread postings read in haste.

Exactly why to sometimes turn the other cheek. Okay, I know, easy for me to say. But when I've done that I've often found it rewarding. And when it wasn't rewarding, well, the situation didn't get any worse. So I'd call the net average result a pretty good return on investment.

[blm]

44. heh....for a couple years here at DU, no one battled more than me and Andy

and then we'd turn around and get all coo with each other.

Heh....we would completely mystify half the people on the thread. Others would find it entertaining or inspiring, since no matter how fiercely we fought, the cooing wasn't far behind.

[MH1]

59. Andy?

Was that Andy Stephenson?

If so, from what I've heard he was a pretty inspiring guy.

[blm]

77. Yep - Andy was originally, Godbushandcheney

and DAMN would we get into battles. Of course, I could always turn him around - LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

OK, Andy, stop with the lightning bolts......Of course, I could SOMETIMES turn him around.


OK?

[TayTay]

78. That is both sweet and bitter.

Andy was a great voice on DU and a great overall guy. It's nice how you could argue and still see the worth in each other.

[fedupinBushcountry]

45. But

would you agree, that she does not have the right to disrupt on this forum. To me that is a big problem, and she should keep her nose out of this forum.
I also read her remarks on GD, and it seems to me that she is quick to stab without any hesitation. I will not respond to her, but if she continues to disrupt in this forum, I think we have every right to tell her to leave.

GD and GD-P are open forums and everyone , even the worse of them have the right to post, but this is a private forum, for Kerry supporters to openly discuss, without having to put up with disruptors. I might have viewed this differently, if it hadn't happened before, but this is becoming a pattern with this particular poster, and that she openly mentions the Kerry forum and then says we want to divide is totally wrong, thus responses come heated and I really can't blame anyone here for chiming in, they have that right on an open forum and even more right on this one.

Just my 2 cents.

[blm]

46. But, the initial motivation for coming here was her suspicion that there

are people working Dean supporters and Kerry supporters to harm and divide the Dem party.

She may have made the mistake of being too sensitive over unguarded posts, but I can only assure you her reaction was just sincere emotion, and not of malicious intent.

Once motivation is established, it's easier to calm the waters, imo.

I am not blaming anyone - I am just trying to give background so certain motivations can be ruled out.

[Dr Ron]

51. Went to far

"But, the initial motivation for coming here was her suspicion that there are people working Dean supporters and Kerry supporters to harm and divide the Dem party."

Maybe that is the initial motivation, but that doesn't justify making wild accusations that anyone pointing out any facts critical of Dean is lying, or to fabricate a story (and spread it around elswhere) that I'm starting a blog campaign against Dean.

Besides, if her goal is to reduce division, her actions accomplish the opposite. She just made two threads that I'm aware of much more hostile places by picking arguments.

[blm]

52. Overly emotional almost always pushes too far.

The whole thread wouldn't have gotten that far if the initial motivation was better known.

The first time an overture was made to bridge the chasm that was developing, it would have been more likely to be accepted, wouldn't it?

[Dr Ron]

53. I think the attempts were made

I hadn't seen the thread for a while after MF came and there were many posts already so I'm not certain of the exact order off hand, but it did look like very early on people were trying to explain things to MF and she wasn't listening.

[ProSense]

47. I agree that the poster is overly sensitive.

I pretty much figured that out by all her other posts out there. It's the entering the JK forum part that I object to. Having said that, as sensitive as this poster is, most of the negative posts about Dean out there elicit a series of sensitive responses from her to fight back the attacks. Having entered this forum on the defensive, why did that change in this instance? What does that have to do with being sensitive? Sensitive doesn't lead to nasty.

This is not all about attacking Kerry; it's also about expressing support and being able to engage in a discussion freely in this forum.

[blm]

49. See my post above -

I defend on the basis of motivation. That's all. It just gives a different perspective, and once you know the motivation is not malicious, it's easier to accept the posts that were initially made as olive branches but overlooked during the heated posting.

[sandrakae]

35. Who's Skinner?

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. The administrator of DU n/t

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

64. No matter how angry you are with this poster

this is really too much. I have seen many good posts by this poster and few that can be described as bashing Democrats. Many of us have been dismayed by the lack of civility on DU, so we really shouldn't do it here.

[BlueIris]

67. J17, I would miss you if you got banned.

So don't let that poster or anyone like that poster provoke you into violating rules that if violated enough might get your posting priviledges revoked. I would be very sad if you weren't around anymore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. After reading all the replies to this thread

I still haven't changed my mind. I know the poster in question is not a troll, and is motivated mainly by her devotion to Dean. That would all be fine with me, if she didn't act like the thoughtpolice. There's really no excuse to lurk around every single unrelated forum on DU patrolling for Dean-related thoughtcrime, and then being disingenuous about her motives - disguising her overreactions as some sort of vague "concern for the party." No, she's concerned about people possibly bashing Howard Dean - which, again, I could easier understand if she'd just be honest about it. Please don't pretend to be a warrior for Democratic unity, but yet defend Kos and his evil hideous lies about John Kerry. If she didn't defend horrible vile divisive elements like Kos just because he is affiliated with Howard Dean, I would have a much easier time taking her complaints seriously. But until she is willing to be up front about her motives, I doubt I'll change my mind. Oh, and staying out of the Kerry forum would be nice, too. This is not a place for public debate, period. If you have a huge issue with something someone has said or you feel a post was horribly unfair to Dean, pm the person responsible. Continuing, furthermore, to insinuate in GD that we as a group are "bad Democrats" because we don't much enjoy non-Kerry supporters trying to pick a fight in here isn't winning you any fans either.

[madfloridian]

68. So though we supported Kerry and donated.

I am not welcome. That tells me a lot. Kind of sad.

When a thread is getting large, and it is about me...then I would think I could defend myself.

I did not use the words you say, I just did not. But if a post is about me, we donated almost a thousand, worked for Kerry here....then I get to defend myself from attacks.

08 is coming, Dean is not running, so I guess we won't be welcome as Kerry supporters.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Did you come in here to express your support for Kerry?

Have you ever? Have you ever started a pro-Kerry thread in GD?

No, no, and while I can't confirm the third question, I'm betting on no.

[MH1]

74. MadFlo *HAS*

alerted me to Kerry-bashing on other sites, and I have posted here when I felt it was warranted and appropriate. I didn't want to point out where I got my info too obviously (for reasons I think are obvious), but at least once someone recognized the source.

Even though that's not a "Yes" to any of the three questions you pose, it's pretty close, and indicates someone is at least to some degree an ally. Compared with the absolute idiots we have to deal with, I'm happy to have MadFlo on our side when she wants to be, and I wish we could patch up these misunderstandings. Neither Kerry or Dean are perfect. They are both good, honorable men who happen to be politicians and sometimes make political choices that some of us will find fault with. It is to be expected that when someone claims essentially that "Dean is God" (i.e. kos in his book) and that everything that went wrong in Dean's campaign was "All Kerry's Fault" (tm) along with lots of insinuations alleging "Kerry is Evil" (tm) then, there will be a reaction from Kerry's supporters that includes pointing out our perceptions of Dean's faults, since those faults just might have had something to do with him losing the primaries. But then it is equally understandable that some Dean supporters will get pretty upset with what they feel is an unfair portrayal of their hero.

Originally, nobody was attacking anyone. There was an attempt to point out facts. People (and I am not pointing fingers at all, because frankly I couldn't stomach reading the entire thread) got bent out of shape over perceived attacks. Then it escalated. Now, we have all this bad feeling, and it's really pointless, IMO.

This is not about you. Any of you. It is about what is good for our country.

(okay, stepping off the soapbox now)

Could we just put this episode behind us and spend our time fighting our real enemies?

[blm]

79. MH1 has it exactly right, imo.

MF has alerted me a few times to Kerry-bashing and has participated in threads trying to settle down bashers of both Kerry and Dean.

The threads here just hit an emotional chord at some point and got out of hand.

Ask yourselves this - What would Kerry advise me to do?

[kerrygoddess]

81. What would John do?

Not being involved in any of this but reading through both threads, I personally feel that there has been a lot of very emotional comments that could have been avoided. Kerry would keep a civil tone when disagreeing with someone and I feel that he would appreciate the same from his supporters.

[saracat]

82. I agree MH1

MadFlo has stood up for Kerry on the odd occasion.And I say that having gotten into some real tussles with her! I think all this attacking and counterattacking is a complete waste of time. We are in an election year and have a chance to take back control of the House and Senate. Whether someone likes Dean or Kerry should be the least of anyone's problems. Neither is up for reelection.Everyone and I mean everyone on both sides of this issue needs to get their priorities straight. THAT is what John Kerry would do! So hush and stop drawing attention to yourselves and making this forum look questionable.

[Dr Ron]

85. Not really the main issue

This is really secondary. It is somewhat relevant because some did respond to MF by questioning whether she has engaged in Kerry bashing but this is not the real issue.

From my perspective, I'm willing to accept that MF is not interested in bashing Kerry and has assisted in stopping such threads, and I accept her word that she contributed to Kerry's campaign.

The real problem though is still the intrusion here that precipitated this. MF is not the administrator here or even a moderator here and really has no business deciding what we might discuss. If she really thought the intent was Dean bashing she could have contacted a moderator. If she wanted to debate she could have come to Democratic Daily, where the original item was posted. However, the post on DU was placed in the Kerry forum under the assumption that this would prevent such debates as opposed to posting it in GD.

MF also might have read the thread more closely before jumping to conclusions. For example, in follow up questions as to whether Dean "crossed the line" I noted that, while I objected to some of Dean's tactics, far worse has been done in other primary campaigns. MF was also wrong in stating I was lying (even though I documented what I said with quotes from newspaper articles and she had no evidence to the contrary) or spreading rumors around DU that I'm starting an anti-Dean campaign with my blog.

Neither having good intentions or having stood up for Kerry on ocassion excuse her behavior in this specific case.

[saracat]

86. I just think we all have better things to do than engaging in this.

It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong in this matter. I more than understand your position on this, but there comes a time to cry "halt" and proceed onto something more productive. I think you should address your concerns to the Admin ,and the rest of us should just let this go. We have Congressional and Senate races to win JMHO.:)

[fedupinBushcountry]

71. I'm sorry

that you can't get it. You brought this upon yourself. You are not a Kerrycrat by any means, and using I gave money and worked is so lame and such rhetoric and very selfish.

What is your point with this "
08 is coming, Dean is not running, so I guess we won't be welcome as Kerry supporters." If you think that those words are suppose to show support for Kerry and what a true Kerry supporter you are, you just failed the test.

You see a true Kerry supporter does not use money or time spent as their main reason for supporting Kerry. Our support is from our hearts, from our reasoning from our common sense.

[TayTay]

72. Sigh! Democrats.

I started this thread in an attempt to figure how to become more civil online and not perpetuate what we all claim to hate in those endless 'bashing threads.'

I don't want to bash anyone. I don't want to make cutting remarks about anyone who doesn't have an R attached to their name. (There are a few Dems I really don't like, but I will gently annoy them, not bash.)

There has to be a better way. There also has to be a way to acknowledge that politics is about feelings and about getting involved and about giving a bit of your heart to a cause and yet not fall off the deep end and start attacking people and not taking people at their word.

This is not that day, obviously.

I deeply regret the level of dialogue here. We need to back up and ask if this is who we are and who we want to be. It's one thing to defend a position people, it's another to refuse to see when harm is being done. Is this what we really want here?

Can we call a truce? Then try an actual dialogue that isn't so confrontational, personal and harsh?

[blm]

80. That's exactly what I think Kerry would advise us to do if he were here.

.

[Dr Ron]

73. Still miss the point

This isn't about whether you, as a person, are welcome. We object to specific actions of yours. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome if you don't engage in such actions.

This also has nothing to do with Dean vs. Kerry or who is running in 2008. Much of the problem comes from you trying to look at everything in that context, and therefore misinterpreting the intitial thread as being Dean bashing.

[Dr Ron]

76. Other alternatives

"If you have a huge issue with something someone has said or you feel a post was horribly unfair to Dean, pm the person responsible.."

True. In this case if she wanted to debate the original post the sensible place to do so would have been on the blog where it initially appeared.

I placed the copy in the Kerry forum of DU as opposed to GD intentionally in order to avoid offending Dean supporters. Coming into the Kerry forum to create problems was not an appropriate response.

[BlueIris]

66. I didn't know Skinner considered us an issue. Nothing against Skinner,

he knows I love and respect his Admin style, but--I guess I just haven't been paying attention to the responses Kerry supporters are giving to the assholes attacking JK. So, I'm surprised to read that the discord has reached this level. I guess that all I want to post about that now, as a person who simply hasn't had time to even think about going after the disruptors, the losers, the insane, the jerks and the trolls is: I hope the actual disruptors are under the same scrutiny. The way I see it, it's about fifty of the same folks doing what I've observed them doing for my one year here: lie about Kerry and his supporters while also lying to support two certain others former candidates for president. They're dipshits. They're abusive. They're pieces of shit as people. I agree with TayTay that we shouldn't let them get to us, especially if Skinner is concerned about rule violations on the part of members of this forum, but I sincerely hope the disruptors are on whatever "problem poster" lists are being made as well.

[Dr Ron]

75. Maybe Skinner should be involved in this discussion

There are posts as to what Skinner might think about this, but we have nothing directly from him which leads to speculation which may or may not be true.

There's also the underlying concern that any opinion he has on this matter is on false information, being based upon untrue accusations being spread by MF.

[paulk]

83. I'm curious

has Skinner contacted you on this

or is this your opinion?

[Dr Ron]

84. Good question

I think that much of this was written under the assumption that Skinner did say something but looking back I see the original post is ambiguous:

"We are going to get another notice soon from Skinner about all the vitriol. . . Skinner is going to ask again if there is a concerted attack strategy formulated in this group to go out and 'get' other people."

Looking at the exact wording it could very well be the writer's opinion/prediction. I think many of the comments on this thread were motivated by the feeling we were falsely being accused of something when the problem was really caused by an outsider inflaming a discussion (after misinterpreting it as being part of a plan to attack Dean. If Skinner never said anything but simply a case of someone fearing he will much of the above was unnecessary. In addition, if Skinner never said anything, both of these hot threads could have been based upon misconceptions.

[TayTay]

87. Skinner has dome into this group and posted requests

in the past that asked us not to gang up on people in other threads outside of this group. He did not ask for censorship in here. But other people have complained and, in my opinion, with cause. We were warned once before. I asked Skinner in a separate thread that he put up about 3 months ago about groups and the rules if a thread like this one we are currently in are within the rules governing criticism of DU and such was allowed. He said yes.

We had complaints before and we asked not to do things that fan the partisan flames left over from the primaries. We were not asked to shut up unilaterally. We were asked not to fan the flames of partisan warfare at DU. I think that is something to keep in mind.

[paulk]

88. I don't think, in this instance, it's the Kerry forum that's fanning the

flames.

There are some cases when what might be percieved as attacks would alienate some potential supporters

but, I really doubt if that's the case here

regarding the poster in question, I would agree with WEL and J17's comments

and most reasonable posters on this board are not going to be swayed in this dispute

including Skinner, imho.

[Dr Ron]

89. Different situation

While I realize you intended well, I think the working of your post was misinterpreted and led to much of what was said here.

This specific case is not an example of ganging up on people. MF provoked things here, and then she made false claims about this group in the thread outside of this group which led to the comments to her there. The Kerry forum cannot be blamed for negative responses to MF in a thread outside of this forum if she initiated the conflict and continued it with comments outside of this forum.

It was the false impression that this group was being blamed by Skinner for this which motivated many of the responses here, and distracted from what you really wanted to talk about.

[TayTay]

90. I'm not sorry it owrked out this way though.

It was a good chance to air the issues out and try and figure out questionable behavior. That was done. I am not opposed to a good argument. I am opposed to ganging up on people on personal terms in that argument.

[politicasista]

91. I don't like ganging up on people either

I have stayed out of this thread, but like paulk said, one has to wonder if this thread is going to alienate or turn off potential supporters to this forum. If we ever visit another Dem forum, it's always used for saying hello or posting facts. I too think that we need to find better ways to air out our disagreements.

[TayTay]

92. I do too!

Everyone feels strongly about their particular views. We feel strongly about candidates and such. But that shouldn't give a license to bad behavior. That drives people away.

[ProSense]

94. Are people ganging up on

other posters? I for one consider long and hard before I respond to some of these posts; others I just repond to. And if I see a response from another poster that makes my point, I leave it at that. But I don't consider it ganging up if a thread contains many Kerry supporters responding to individual post on their own. It looks that way, but again I enter a thread, am I to consider how many Kerry supporters are in that thread already?

Whatever has to happen to change this perception I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't stifle the debate.

I wanted to make this point, but this is a shame because it started with a disruption.

[Dr Ron]

96. Ganging Up and the rules

I just did a search for Skinner's comments here in the past, and I don't think what happened now really falls under the type of ganging up he complained of in the past. (Note this my interpretation of what he said--no guarantee that this is how things will be enforced).

It looks like it is fine if you respond to anti-Kerry posts (or any other posts you object to) and the number of other Kerry supporters also responding is irrelevant. You don't have to consider how many Kerry supporters are in that thread. What would violate the rules would be if you not only objected but came back here added the link, requesting others to "gang up."

It also seems safe to say that my original thread is within the rules. The rules do not prohibit discussion which has some negative comments on Dean or others. However, I suspect it would have violated the rules if the tone was differrent--such as if it said "I'm pissed at Dean because he did this and that--let's post a bunch of comments in GD criticizing him for this."

[fedupinBushcountry]

97. You are right

it started with a disruption. My last 2 cents on this.

The disruptor broke the rules, not us. I do not feel this to be a safe zone anymore, thanks to this disruptor, and I think that is sad for all of us.I feel as if I have eyes looking over my shoulder just waiting for me to say something about a certain person and storming in this forum and saying we are part of the problem. This disruptor got things heated up , not one Kerrycrat.

I might of felt a little different and let it slide by, but this is not the first time that this person has disrupted conversation on this forum. What really gets me irritated about this whole matter, is that this poster entered this forum again, and heats it up again. So who got hurt, not the disruptor but a loyal Kerrycrat and I hope not banned. Yes the Kerrycrat may have said a few harsh words in a heated moment, but you know the Kerrycrat was defending this forum, and had that right.

I just wonder how many more times this will happen, and how many more will join the eyes looking over my shoulder.

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. I kind of resent the implication here

I'm more than ready for this to be over. But I don't believe in accepting wholesale blame for a fight I didn't start. Let's just remember who broke the rules by coming in here to start an argument when the rules of DU expressly state that the candidate group forums are to be disruptor-free. I don't believe any objective reader would look at these threads and decide not to support Kerry because we got angry when someone broke DU's rules and implied that we were both dishonest and divisive. Sorry - turning the other cheek isn't a very winning philosophy, imo. I'm all for rationality, but the entire nature of the original offense threw rationality out the window from the beginning.

[Dr Ron]

99. Should we have alerted a moderator from the beginning?

In retrospect maybe we should have alerted a moderator from early on before things got out of hand. Hopefully they would have agreed this violated policies that these groups remain disruptor-free.

[Dr Ron]

95. That's proper for visiting other candidate forums

I'm not worried about this thread alienating potential supporters. I think that most agree with your comments on visiting other Dem forums and would understand that if someone came here to argue with a post they would not be very welcome.

[Dr Ron]

93. As long as you are happy with how it turned out

I got the impression from a comment above that you weren't happy with how this discussion was turning out, but if in the end you are happy with it, that is fine.

[TayTay]

100. Yeah, we aired our differences and completely hashed out

a confusing policy. That is a good.