If you had your own political website, how would it be different from DU

[OmahaBlueDog]

...yes, yes...I know..you'd TS all the Blue Dogs - especially those from Nebraska.

But seriously, would you do anything substantially differently than what Skinner & Co. do? If so, please share.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Men's issues would be as worthy of discussion as Women's.

From a purely practical standpoint, men are half the voters, and the party needs outreach.

[MineralMan]

12. You forgot your Sarcasm smiley there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Take it to the men's forum. n/t

[MineralMan]

44. No, thanks. You introduced it here, so here's where I commented.

You don't want comments? I don't go to the Men's Forum.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Uh... There is no men's forum

That was kind of the point.

[MineralMan]

68. Never looked for one. Never missed it, either.

Why would there be one? Are we downtrodden, under-represented, or abused somehow? As near as I can tell, men are still pretty much sitting in the catbird seat. Or so it seems to me.

What would men talk about in a "men's forum?" Remedies for fungus infections? What?

[uncommon]

72. It was a discussion a couple of weeks ago - a man posted about the need for a men's

forum where no "hatred, bigotry or misogyny OR misandry" would be tolerated.

It was, of course, MRA bs and was quickly in the wind.

[Lance_Boyle]

73. In what way are women in the US downtrodden, under-represented, or abused?

Women's issues fora at DU outnumber men's issues fora 2 to 0 - that is unequal and nobody has ever offered any explanation as to why we should tolerate this inequality.

What do you think of the information in post #64?

[MineralMan]

75. Ha! You don't know? Well, never mind then.

As for the information in post #64, I can create a similar list of stuff for any group in just a few minutes. There are differences that can always be found. I'm not going to discuss this further.

I'm sure there are many "men's forums" on the Internet. I'm sure you can find one quite easily.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. There are absolutely mens forums on the internet. Lots of them.

All of them are full of right wing bullshit.

I would expect progressives to think through the advice they were giving a little more thoroughly.

[MineralMan]

121. Well, I'm no expert on men's forums. I'm a member of a couple

of fishing and boating forums, and some political forums. There are men on those, too, but we don't spend much time talking about how hard it is to be a man in this society. Mostly, we talk about fishing, boating, and politics. I can't imagine what would interest me on a "men's forum." Again... what would they talk about? Doesn't sound that interesting to me. I know about being a man. I learn about boating, fishing, and politics.

Good luck with your men's forums. Have a great time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. I get boat building stuff at boating forums. I get workshop stuff at workshop stuff forums.

I talk about social policy stuff at DU.

There are absolutely political policy debates that affect men. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

That said, the crafts and needlepoint forum doesn't interest me much, but that fact doesn't make it too controversial.

[MineralMan]

132. Well, then, I suggest that you fire up a men's forum.

You can actually start one for free. Just search for Free Forum on Google. There are plenty of forum platforms out there. You'll have to live with ads, but once your forum is up and successful, you have have a donation drive and maybe opt for one of the ad-free formats. Since you'll own the forum, you can moderate it however you like. You could even hang out a "No Gurls Aloud" sign on the entrance and make everyone who joins send you a picture that proves their manhoods.

Then, you could have the pleasure of running your own forum, moderating the discussions, breaking up the fights, and so forth. It would be a real adventure for you.

You could get it started over a weekend, make it look just like you want, and run it to suit your own particular tastes and interests and so on.

People do it every day.

Or, you could keep petitioning the owners of this forum to give you what you want. It doesn't sound like they're that interested, though. This is a big site. It takes a lot of time and work to run. Maybe they just don't share your vision.

That needn't stop you, though, or even slow you down. There is an alternative just waiting for your leadership and initiative. It all starts with a simple Google search.

Now, I'm done with this topic. It doesn't really interest me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. Actually, I like debating things with DU'ers

They are unusual (although imperfect) in their ability to rationally defend their views.

And I see no reason to exclude women from discussion in a mens forum any more than men are prohibited from posting in DU's womens forums.

Topic forums organize topics, not posters.

[seabeyond]

139. .

:thumbsup: thanks for inclusion.

[uncommon]

170. The anti-feminist men on DU should try out

http://www.antimisandry.com -- full of woman hating, should make them all feel right at home.

[H2O Man]

88. Yikes!

If I understand your post correctly -- and let me know if I am mistaken -- you are suggesting that there is no need for a men's forum, because men are not "downtrodden, under-represented, or abused somehow." Hence, such a forum would be reduced to discussing "fungus infections."

The first point is odd, indeed. There is, for example, a sports forum, though few sports fans that participate in it are downtrodden, etc. For sake of discussion here, though, I will state without any chance of error that in one forum, men are indeed at a distinct disadvantage due to sex alone: family court. Progress towards some degree of fairness in family court is happening, though it is still not an even-playing court.

Second, in that same vein, there are numerous issues -- such as parenting -- where men have unique experiences. Being a father, or indeed, a step-father, is just as important as being a mother or step-mother. Being a son or brother is different from being a daughter or sister. Human family dynamics lend evidence that there is need for a men's forum.

Men can be the victims of physical abuse. They can face sexual harassment in the workplace. One can debate the "numbers," but not the significance of a single human being having to deal with these issues. They should never be made light of, by reference to their being equal in significance to athlete's foot fungus or jock itch.

I could go on and on. But I'll sum it up by saying that a men's forum, where men can discuss their rights and responsibilities, is a good idea.

[MineralMan]

122. DU is not my site. I have nothing to say about how it is run.

All I can suggest is that you propose a men's forum to the administrators. If you've already done that, and they said no, then I guess that's it. What do you want from me? I have no interest in such a forum, so I wouldn't go there if there was one. So, if it's what you want, ask the owners of DU for one. It's none of my affair.

[H2O Man]

126. I think that

you've avoided responding to any of the points I made.

[MineralMan]

127. OK. That's my prerogative, isn't it.

You post. I respond. We both do as we see fit. Seeya.

[H2O Man]

159. Obviously.

I didn't say it wasn't up to you. I just found it odd that you are posting nonsense.

[uncommon]

171. If there are DUers who really want a men's forum, just go about asking the

right way and you can probably have one.

However, every time someone brings it up, they do it in a divisive manner that destroys their chances - also they never follow the rules for requesting a new board.

[lumberjack_jeff]

180. The rules have been followed each time it's been asked.

The mods have been instructed to summarily lock all threads initiating that process.

Other than following the official rules for requesting a forum, I am at a loss as to what constitutes "the right way". I never was good at the childhood game Mother may I?

This topic will always be divisive, because there's a large contingent of DU'ers who think that DU's main purpose is to hate men. There's no other good explanation for this phenomenon.

[seabeyond]

182. I never was good at the childhood game Mother may I?

i laughed at that. me, too.

there's a large contingent of DU'ers who think that DU's main purpose is to hate men.

i disagree with this. adamently. and yes there are. and it has been talked about here. but...

i have to iron hubby's clothes so he can go out of town and play some golf with owner of his employee. i just dont have the time to gab, lol.... teasing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. If fungus infections are a topic of interest, I suppose so.

In general, people in the mens forum might talk about anything that is consistent with the rules of the site.

[MineralMan]

125. Seems to me you could do that already on DU. Lots of

specialty forums and groups here. That's why I asked what topics you might want to discuss in a men's forum. I just can't think of any that can't be discussed elsewhere. You can discuss health concerns on the Health forum. We even have a Guns forum, a Sports forum, and a bunch of other forums about special interests.

What on earth is there that's different about a bunch of men than a bunch of people of both sexes? What would you talk about? Most of the time, I don't even know what sex a DUer is when I read a thread. It's irrelevant. This is a political forum. Do men and women have different Democratic issues to discuss? I haven't noticed that.

[pipi_k]

181. Didn't know quite where to jump in on the subthread...

so I'll do it here.

No men's forum.


I was a longtime member of a group that was mostly women. The women were given their own separate (password-protected) board and the men were told to stay out.

There are some issues women aren't comfortable discussing in the presence of men, even if the men aren't a majority. Especially when some of those issues prompted some sarcastic or dirty comments from some of the more childish "men".

OK, so some of the men started whining..."We want our own forum too!!!! wahhh wahhh wahhh!"

After much thought, the board owner gave them one. Well, it got some use for a while, then languished for months...unused. The owner got rid of it. Some months go by and some new members joined and started screeching about wanting a men's forum. The owner (and Admins and Mods) all told these guys what had happened before. NO!!! NOT FAIR!!! We want our OWN board, they cried. After much thought (again) the owner gave it to them. Same thing. They'd go in there and discuss whatever it was they discussed (I never looked) and then abandon it. This same cycle must have happened three or four times.

So what are we to think about this? That men want what they can't have and when they get it, they don't want it?

I don't want to denigrate all men, but it sure as hell looked that way on that particular site.


Oh, and the really shitty part...some of the guys got hold of the password to the Women Only forum and lurked. We found out when some of them discussed (albeit in a veiled way) some of the things they had read on the Women Only forum. In essence, violating a lot of women who already had serious issues with violation.


Anyway, just thought I'd relate this story. It's of no concern to me whether men get their own forum here.

But at least one person here had a great idea...if you can't have what you want here, start your own discussion group. Lots of people have done it. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

188. DU has a different architecture.

Posters don't have to register to allowed to participate in a given forum.

As this subthread suggests, that fact alone will guarantee lots of discussion in a men's forum. It seems likely that early discussion won't be primarily men discussing issues, but women who have an issue with allowing men to discuss issues.

Some of the mods claim to be against the idea largely because they think moderation will be problematic. Although it might be true to a greater extent than the motorcycling or DIY forums, it won't be untenable.

I strongly feel that a progressive mens forum is important. Absent the history, tradition, rules and moderation policy of DU, we don't have any control over what it will turn into.

I've often been frustrated and tempted to do it elsewhere, but I think it should be done here.

[pipi_k]

210. Actually, it was the same structure

register once to use the entire system.

But various forums were password protected and didn't need additional registration.

[uncommon]

28. Hahaha. All issues are men's issues.

Christ on a cracker what foolishness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. I am demonstrably right

A men's issues forum is officially "too controversial" for DU.

[sabrina 1]

160. I would have no problem with it. I think there are issues

that are uniquely men's issues, such as how they are treated as fathers in the judicial system. Lots of others too. But if we support equality as women, it is pretty hypocritical to deny it to men imho. If they want a forum, I say let them have one.

[LaurenG]

175. In the past the entire world has been the mens forum

everything was built to serve men, things have changed a little but not enough yet.

I do think you should get a mens forum though but you will probably need to hire your own mod team.


edit: typo

[Lance_Boyle]

36. plus 5 insightful

How's things, fellow DU second-class netizen?

[uncommon]

46. Are you guys really serious with this stuff?

Do you really not understand your male privilege? Really?

You really think you are the down-trodden?

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. The question was asked how I'd operate New-DU.

I wouldn't operate it as the mirror image of the male privilege you perceive.

Men...
die younger
are 50% less likely to get a college education than women
held 80% of the jobs lost in this recession
about 80% of the homeless are men
represent 92% of the workplace fatalities
are more likely to be the victims of violent crime
are systematically discriminated against in family court
if arrested, are much more likely to be convicted of a crime than a woman
die of suicide about 4x as often as women

What's the cultural response?
healthcare reform which passes the costs of women's longer lives onto men
Women's educational equity program
The Kennedy report on the impact of the recession on women
The violence against women act
Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act

Men generally don't perceive this privilege that is so blindingly apparent to you because, in our day-to-day lives, it doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

There is no other group among whom DU would tolerate the above statistics. In contrast, because it's men, it's not enough.

I long ago got used to the idea that pointing out this stuff makes me "a misogynist". I can live with that.

[uncommon]

65. It makes you blind, that's for certain.

[smiley]

79. how so?

just sounds like you hate men and would just assume they not even be on this forum

[MineralMan]

84. How would one "assume" they were not on this forum?

That doesn't even make any sense. What were you trying to say? And I am a man, so don't tell me I hate men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. How is that explanatory?

Michelle Bachmann is a woman after all.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/aboutus.htm

[smiley]

190. my post was directed at #65

not yours. I wondered why wanting and including a men's forum on a political website would make one blind.

Just so you don't get you tizzy in more of a fit. I don't you hate men. I think you just like to argue

[uncommon]

172. Lol, not even close.

I never said a thing that indicated I "hate" men - also I think most of our male DUers are great members of this community who really believe in Democratic and progressive values.

Feminism happens to be a progressive value.

[MineralMan]

82. Hmm...your list...

Let's see:

Men...
die younger - biology, along with men's reluctance to go to the damn doctor. Feel poorly? Go to the damn doctor.

are 50% less likely to get a college education than women - Go to college, then. Can't afford it? Join the NG. They'll pay for it.

held 80% of the jobs lost in this recession - More women work in service jobs...that area had fewer layoffs.

about 80% of the homeless are men - See previous point. Also see the point about suicide. Get help. It's available.

represent 92% of the workplace fatalities - See previous point. Men work more in dangerous jobs than women. It's manly to do so.

are more likely to be the victims of violent crime - are also more likely to perpetrate such crimes. Men are more aggresive by nature. Testosterone.

are systematically discriminated against in family court - Depends on the jurisdiction. Men are also far more likely to be involved in domestic abuse. Every case is different.

if arrested, are much more likely to be convicted of a crime than a woman - I'll need backup on this one, on a per capita basis. Too general.

die of suicide about 4x as often as women - Are less likely to go to the damn doctor when they feel bad. Depressed? Go to the doctor.


Got another list? I'll be happy to go through it, too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. You do realize that explaining why women's problems are of their own creation wouldn't fly here

Right?

Your post, far more so than the one to which you were responding, should be exhibit #1 as to why a mens forum is necessary.

[MineralMan]

117. Nobody has asked me to do that. You posted a list of

supposed "problems." I offered my explanation of them. You can either refute my explanations or let them stand. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. If someone posts a list of women's issues, I might take a stab at it, if I thought they were bogus issues, as in your list. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

You are not the only man in this thread, Mr. Lumberjack. I'm one, too.

[MineralMan]

118. Dupe

Sorry.

[EstimatedProphet]

163. I think you inadvertently pointed out why it might be a progressive idea to have a men's forum

And it isn't about the privilege. I know we have it. I'm not going to deny it. But if we really want society to change in a positive way, we have to work positively to change it. Think about all the rebuttals you just posted. Just about all of them have one thing in common:

Men always try to do things on their own.

A men's forum to whine about how things aren't the way they used to be has no place on DU. But a men's forum that addresses how to be more positive and self-actualized, how better to relate to everyone in society as a whole, and how to fight the fear of being seen as weak when asking for help, might.

[seabeyond]

164. and that would be profoundly the higher intent of such a forum.... or

does it reduce to sex threads. if you note the posters on this thread that demand a change, it is in sex threads and only men. and the only point i see in the sex threads are men gathering to degrade, demean, dehumanize for their entertainment and pumping chest about what a man is.

which would be the lowest of what the forum would be.

but

for man to actually allow vulnerability (in my book, allowing vulnerability eliminates vulnerability. to protect vulnerability allows it to exist) and see it is not a scary thing, as a matter of fact, disappears

would be a well learned life lesson.

[EstimatedProphet]

165. So we police it to keep it that way

Demeaning things are off-topic, and deleted. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[seabeyond]

166. i can really see it as an attempt to health and healing.

that is alwyas good. that is always my attempt in talking about anything to anyone. i can see it as something very valuable in the culture we have created for men to live in.

[uppityperson]

120. I'd like to see links to those numbers, from a reputable source.

thanks.

I agree there should be a men's forum.

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. .

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0008.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy498/gendermain.html
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/vsx2.cfm

That's most of them. If you disagree with any of the rest, we'll talk.

[uppityperson]

194. Thanks. Off to read. Yes and no, agree and not.

I'll give you men die younger, higher % of homeless, more likely victim of violent reported crime, but reading the NYT article on job loss, not so much in agreement. The article on college graduation shows more classism with resulting racism and sexism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1

As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force

With the recession on the brink of becoming the longest in the postwar era, a milestone may be at hand: Women are poised to surpass men on the nation’s payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history. The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling.

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.
(clip)
Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support a family. For one thing, they work fewer overall hours than men. Women are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, according to the government data.

“A lot of jobs that men have lost in fields like manufacturing were good union jobs with great health care plans,” says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. “The jobs women have — and are supporting their families with — are not necessarily as good.”
(clip)When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men’s child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities.

Interesting article on college education. Here's bits that call into question why, and show the gap is not uniform re gender, more like income (and related skin color) which leads me to consider classism and racism vs sexism.

It is not that men are in a downward spiral: they are going to college in greater numbers and are more likely to graduate than two decades ago. Still, men now make up only 42 percent of the nation's college students. And with sex discrimination fading and their job opportunities widening, women are coming on much stronger, often leapfrogging the men to the academic finish.
(clip)
The gender differences are not uniform. In the highest-income families, men 24 and under attend college as much as, or slightly more than, their sisters, according to the American Council on Education, whose report on these issues is scheduled for release this week.

Young men from low-income families, which are disproportionately black and Hispanic, are the most underrepresented on campus, though in middle-income families too, more daughters than sons attend college. In recent years the gender gap has been widening, especially among low-income whites and Hispanics. When it comes to earning bachelor's degrees, the gender gap is smaller than the gap between whites and blacks or Hispanics, federal data shows.

All of this has helped set off intense debate over whether these trends show a worrisome achievement gap between men and women or whether the concern should instead be directed toward the educational difficulties of poor boys, black, white or Hispanic.

"Over all, the differences between blacks and whites, rich and poor, dwarf the differences between men and women within any particular group," says Jacqueline King, a researcher for the American Council on Education's Center for Policy Analysis and the author of the forthcoming report.

How about "are systematically discriminated against in family court"? Seems recent times this is changing a lot, esp as far as child custody. Again, I have no issue with having a men's group, would be interesting to moderate it, wonder if they'd go for even a trial one which, if doesn't work, would be canceled? Seems a fair chunk of the stuff you wrote in previous reply can also be seen as racist and classist vs just sexist. Sort of like classism is based on racism, this men having these issues could also be classism and racism? Just thinking here. Not snarking.

[lumberjack_jeff]

195. You seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't say.

I said that men had experienced 80% of the job losses in this recession.

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men...

I stand corrected. It's 82%.

Class doesn't explain the 3:2 gender ratio unless one assumes that wealthy families are more likely to have daughters.

[uppityperson]

196. Women make less, are laid off less. Not arguing with your #'s, just saying one statistic doesn't

accurately portray it all. You know, lies, damned lies and statistics. Men, in generally higher paying jobs like manufacturing and construction, are laid off more than women, in generally lower paying jobs like education and health care.

So, if men/women were employed in equal numbers across the jobs, seems like the job loss would be the same. Some jobs (traditionally male) are losing jobs faster than others (traditionally female). So men are not losing jobs due to being male, but due to being in certain job categories.

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. One statistic doesn't portray it all. The assortment in post 64 begins to paint a clear picture.

I'll be more receptive to the concept of male privilege when I hear a woman shout "men and children first!" while holding the door for me.

We have pretty well eliminated all the elements of the patriarchy which create barriers for women while keeping all the convenient parts e.g. "the homeless women veterans act".

In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. One correction;

3 women get a college education for every two men.
Thus a better way of stating what I meant is;
It is 50% more likely that a diploma will be awarded to a woman than a man.

[ZombieHorde]

109. There are two Christian boards here on DU and Christian privilege definitely exists in the US.

Privilege does not disqualify a subject for receiving its own board.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Good example. n/t

[SwampG8r]

149. those boards are

more like target a christian forums the anti religious posts on the theology forum way outnumber the pro religious posts
hell expressing your christianity in the DU theology forum is like drawing a target on yourself

[ZombieHorde]

152. I am not talking about R/T, which is a great board.

I am talking about...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=291

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=275

The Christian boards forbid arguing against the Christian faith.

[uncommon]

173. No, but those who generally advocate for a men's forum on DU cite

their "second class citizen" status (laughable) and claim that they deserve a forum as an oppressed class.

[ZombieHorde]

186. I agree with you that men are not second class citizens in the US. nt

[uncommon]

187. Well that's good --

it's not really a matter for debate or question.

[HEyHEY]

147. Well no one is supposed to care.

For instance, the highest suicide rate is men in their late 30s. But no one cares, why should they? Why should we dedicate any resources to finding out why and trying to curb it? It's just men, they get everything else we're told. Fuck em.

[FSogol]

2. I'd add casual Fridays. n/t

[ixion]

3. If it were a political site, it would be party agnostic

and would encourage open and honest debate about issues.

In that sense, it would be the anti-politics website. :)

[Regret My New Name]

61. Don't those types of sites usually degrade in mindless flames though?

I've been kicking around ideas to have a site that would politically agnostic and allow for structured debate. Like not just a fourm/message-board free for all, but something that would drill down into the issues. Ennh, but I too lazy to fully develop the idea, let alone develop the site. :P Maybe someday I will get really bored.

[ixion]

104. Yeah, and although the debate would be open

the traditional hack response of attacking the messenger would lead to being shown the door.

[liberal N proud]

4. I couldn't come close to being what DU is.

I don't have the web savvy that Skinner has.

[woo me with science]

5. Restore freedom of expression.

Reassign the sensitivity and unpopular speech police. They can do beer delivery instead.

[OmahaBlueDog]

26. Would you have mods at all?

..or would it basically become octagon cage match smackdown?

[Lance_Boyle]

56. slashdot has the best moderation system on the intarwebz.

randomly selected moderators from the regular user pool use their "mod points" (you get 5 per mod period) to rate posts up or down. Mods cannot comment in a thread that they have moderated. People can choose what "level" of posts they want to see. Browsing at +5 shows you only posts that have been rated positive at least 5 more times than they have been rated negative. Browsing at -1 lets you see pretty much everything, and some of it can be vile. But it does away with the "disappeared discussion" issue that plagues DU. And it takes moderation out of the hands of a select few - it democratizes moderation.

[sir pball]

203. +10e100

IMO is IS the perfect mod system - the community will push down any comments that for whatever reason they disapprove of, but they remain completely accessible. There's zero "censorship", only a "ratings" system with any number of options for avoiding the negative commentary while leaving it totally open and available.

Plus Slashcode is F/OSS, which is about as progressive as software can get..

(I have a UID in the 20Ks, FWIW)

[woo me with science]

113. Yup, I'd get rid of most of them.

I believe that when DU started, there were minimal rules. Now they have exploded to include minutiae as ludicrous as not calling the President "Barry."

I'd much rather see admins function as equal members of the community who merely remove occasional egregious site violations--illegal postings, obvious trolling for trolling's sake, or threats of violence, for example. Other than that, admins should recognize other posters as fellow adults capable of determining the content of their own conversations.

They shouldn't presume to protect any fellow adult from opinions he or she might not like. They should not babysit, censor, or enforce "sensitivity" in other adults' conversations. They should realize that others are free to engage the way they choose. Ironically, they will retain respect precisely because they do not attempt to play the role of nanny, "daddy," or enforcer.

Posters who post stupid or insensitive content will receive feedback from the community, not from some faux authority figure or from anonymous recs or unrecs. That is as it should be. People tend to be more careful and thoughtful about what they say when they know they will have to defend it in words.

My board also wouldn't assume a need for technology in order for posters to "ignore" someone they find difficult or offensive. I'd expect adults to be capable of selecting their conversation partners and ignoring posts they do not want to read, all on their own.

My experience on boards with minimal rules is that the conversations are richer and more civil. People act more like adults because they are treated that way.

[BeFree]

6. Free Toilet Paper for everyone!!

And then have a way for members to vote people like me off the, well, the, uh...
What is this? Is this an island, or an iceberg, or mainland, or cloud, or what?

We need to know what it is we are voting people off of, don't we, before we vote, right?

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. So, it's basically "Survivor", but with free TP..

Wouldn't free bidets work out better for all concerned?

[BeFree]

33. Yes

In the end bidets are better.

Underground Poli-Radical Bidet Users.com

[VMI Dem]

7. I would not tolerate bigotry. Racism and homophobia would be unacceptable.

There would be no double standard in that regard. I would add sexism to that as well.

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. What about faith?

Is faith protected here, or do atheists still get free reign to belittle one's religon?

[LAGC]

108. Should faith be protected class?

Its not like people are born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu. Everyone's an agnostic at birth.

Religion is a LEARNED CHOICE. It's not set in stone like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[SwampG8r]

150. catholics are born christian

jews are born jewish

[ZombieHorde]

110. What is faith? An opinion with no proof? Do opinions need to be protected? nt

[bobbolink]

116. If you believe in the Constitution, then yes, faith is protected.

If you don't believe in the Constitution, then..... :shrug:

[LAGC]

119. No, the PRACTICE of faith is protected, not faith itself.

There's nothing stopping me from criticizing your belief in supernatural non-sense and scientific ignorance.

[bobbolink]

123. Yes, that is correct, and what I took the poster to be referring to.

I don't know why you got into such a personal attack, but to reply to your second part, there is nothing stopping you from being as nasty as you wish to be, except common courtesy and respect.

[LAGC]

148. Why do you see it as a personal attack?

That's the problem with religion. Everyone's so hyper-sensitive about it. Too easy to get feelings hurt.

I wasn't criticizing you, merely certain beliefs. There's a difference. Don't take it personal.

[bobbolink]

183. When people don't see their own attacks, and go around accusing others of being

"hypersensitive", it is clear they are INSENSITIVE.

It is now a badge of honor to be able to hurt people, and to laugh at others, and put people down.

Congratulations.

[LAGC]

191. So what are you saying? Religion should be "off-bounds?"

No one should be able to criticize it? Why? What's so special about religion, moreso than mere political or philosophical belief? Why is it okay to criticize someone's politics, but not their faith? Why should religion demand such automatic respect?

If someone holds errant views, I see nothing wrong with calling them on it. If they can't defend their faith with arguments, then what good is it stubbornly maintaining those close-minded views?

[bobbolink]

193. OMG... are you really that obtuse?

Really?

Let me ask this... do you understand the basic concept of the DU rules?

DO you NOT understand the difference between discussing and even disagreeing, or blasting someone personally, and their beliefs?

I repeat... are you really that obtuse, or is this just a game?

[LAGC]

199. Judging from your responses in the environmentalism thread...

I see you're simply easy to offend.

Off to ignore with you.

[ZombieHorde]

131. We were talking about message boards' rules, not the government.

Do opinions need to be protected from criticism?

[bobbolink]

107. And classism?

[bobbolink]

114. I guess not.

:shrug:

[meegbear]

8. Can only be on the site if you're nude ...

so you'd need a webcam.

[Soylent Brice]

179. link please.

:hide:

[riverdale]

9. no one banned for any reason

the ignore feature works fine

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. We all live forever - in a Tombstone free world

What about bigotry, sexism, and homophobia - you'd be on board with not TSing those posters?

[NoGOPZone]

67. Even if someone posted "Tombstone me right the fuck now!"? nt

[aquart]

10. We'd have hearts all the time.

I like hearts.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Then here are some hearts for you

:loveya:

Souls are a better way to see someone

[stuntcat]

157. Yeah!

:)
(If I was in charge I'd also kick out everyone who fights.)

[Javaman]

11. It would be in pig-latin only to scare off the fundies. nt

[MineralMan]

14. It would have folded long ago, just like so many have done.

DU works.

[zipplewrath]

20. Kinda what I was thinking

I could mention all sorts of ideals that would make it more to my liking.

And I was going to finish with the reality that it would mean that I'd probably be the only one there.

[MineralMan]

63. Yah. Lots of people start up discussion forums. Often,

though, they are just offshoots of some successful forum, started by people who can't post at the successful forum any longer. Places like that never last long. They're sort of incestuous or something. I've seen many such startups go away after a few months or a couple of years. There was this one boating forum, started by some guy who got kicked off a bit forum on the subject for being a dickhead. He got some of his buddies to go over to his new forum. They cussed at the old forum for about three months, but ran out of stuff to talk about, so it just sort of died off. I think it's still there, but there hasn't been a new post on it for a couple of years.

Waste of time.

[guitar man]

15. I would allow sex threads

dirty old man that I am :evilgrin:

[OmahaBlueDog]

29. Maybe we could ask Skinner for a DU Group.

..just sayin....

[CLANG]

16. I would be in charge of Tombstoning - and I would be BRUTAL!

[jobycom]

17. I'd ban any opinion buy mine. Yessir, a majority of one.

And I'd win every election, too, because even though the majority of voters disagreed with me, I'd be really pure and want it really bad, so my one vote would overrule all of their votes.

[ismnotwasm]

18. Feminist friendly

In my perfect world, Threads on the atrocious world wide violence against women hopefully wouldn't drop like stones. The ERA wouldn't be political anthropology. People would actually know the meaning of words and phases like 'rape culture' and 'sexism' and could discuss these things without misogyny, overt or covert.

No. racism. Ever. If white 'entitlement' or 'privilege' is mentioned, people would know what that means too.

Actually, more underdog I guess, ie. Awareness of Native American issues, more discussion of poverty, less negativity toward undocumented workers.

[uncommon]

30. Amen to all of that.

[LoZoccolo]

19. I would insta-ban everyone who advocated not voting for Democrats.

I don't think someone who does that needs to have a post deleted or locked and a little time to think about it; I think they need a lot of time to think about it, perhaps months or years.

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. That gets into a slippery slope

Bernie Sanders, for example - not a Democrat. So if a pro-gun, anti-abortion candidate runs against him, calling him/herself a Dem, then what do you do?

[LoZoccolo]

34. Insta-ban everyone who advocates voting for Bernie Sanders.

The slippery slope works the other way too; people would start saying "well you let people campaign for Bernie Sanders". Bernie Sanders needs to be a Democrat anyways or he is in constant danger of splitting the vote.

[jgraz]

42. Except, of course, for Charlie Crist.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

50. Insta-ban everybody who campaigns for Charlie Crist too.

Where did you get this idea that I would support him?

[LoZoccolo]

54. And before you ask, insta-ban anyone who advocates against Alvin Greene too.

I don't even think there's a third party in that race.

[jgraz]

55. You're gonna be awfully lonely at your new website.

Just put up a page that runs paid DNC ads. It'll be a lot easier and accomplish the same thing.

[LoZoccolo]

58. And yet I would probably have enough people on it to

spawn another forum of player-haters lol.

[Marr]

70. Would you now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2735496&mesg_id=2735668

[LoZoccolo]

78. I endorsed Lamont.

I also did not tell people to vote for Lieberman. Part of the problem with 2006 was that Lamont supporters were actually doing the work of selling Joe Lieberman to the Republicans by declaring him a Republican when they should have just been declaring him not as good of a Democrat than Lamont. They should have repelled his Republican support, not attracted it. Then, maybe some of the votes that eventually went to Lieberman would have went to Schlesinger.

[Marr]

80. Fanciful critiques of Lamont supporters notwithstanding...

...you said you considered it Lieberman's duty to run as an Independent, against a Democrat. By your own logic, you'd have to ban yourself from your forum.

[LoZoccolo]

99. And against a Republican too.

I also said that people should vote for Lamont.

[LoZoccolo]

101. I don't really remember posting that though.

For all I know I was trolling and the deleted message in the sub-thread was me saying that I was fooling you around. Or it could have been brinksmanship. Maybe I would have deleted myself from the forum, but also maybe I would have said that "insta-bans" only last four years so I'd be back on right now.

[Edweird]

21. If I had one it would suck. So I don't have one.

[Lyric]

25. Arguing against reproductive choice would be grounds for a ban hammer.

And people who subtly argue against immediate gay equality would get the SAME ban-hammer as the ones who are stupid enough to be blatant about it.

[GSLevel9]

31. mmmm... it'd have no posting priveleges for anyone but me :) nt

[Lance_Boyle]

35. less censorship. make that NO censorship.

Hurt feelings should never trump free speech, and DU has failed miserably in this regard.

[jgraz]

41. +1000000

Locks, deletions and bannings based on content is about as un'democratic' as it gets.

[Evasporque]

37. Require real names....

That would pretty much put an end to Paid GOP Trolls.

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. It would also terminate the employment of a lot of good people who post here

[hfojvt]

38. I already have two such websites - sort of

they are not discussion boards though. Only one of them belongs to me. The other I just created and maintain for the local county party.

for one thing, I don't have the technology to create a site like this. For another, I don't want to have to babysit and moderate so many of the nasty comments coming from the public.

[LWolf]

39. No recs or unrecs.

I'd like to discourage "k&rs," as well. Even though I have fallen to the quick, easy, temptation they offer myself.

I think people should actually have something to say, should have to communicate their own thinking and ideas, to post. Something more than "What he said," or "Go team," or "So there."

I think I would delete every damned post that attacked the messenger instead of the message; if someone can't communicate their message without attacking the identity, rather than the positions, of the opposition, they shouldn't be posting.

I think I'd delete every post that said, "Tune into..." or "_____is on right now..." If someone wants to make a comment about what a talking head says, they should make a comment. Talking heads should not be revered as "leaders" for the center or left, any more than they should be for the right. If it's not okay for Rush and Beck listeners, it's not okay for "Rachel" or "Keith" listeners. If a poster has something to say about what she's heard, she should say it. That's fine. That's discussion. Just threads full of captive audiences cheering a speaker is a waste, imo.

I think I'd delete every post that talked about, or addressed content to, "freepers," "trolls," "lurkers," etc., and redirect DUers back to the actual DUers they are supposed to be talking to.

I don't think I'd relegate some subjects to rubber rooms off the front pages of the big forums.

I'd rather see a site dedicated to issues and policy, rather than personality and party. That's just me. I'd rather issues and policy take precedence at all times, rather than surging and receding according to the election cycle.

I'd rather the site be about conversation and civil conversation and debate, rather than about warring gangs competing for the last word.

[Common Sense Party]

134. I agree with everything except the recs and unrecs.

Some good suggestions there.

[LWolf]

140. Recs and unrecs

because they are divisive. They become a tool for boosting those on your "side" and dragging down those on the "other" sides, regardless of content. They are often used for, or against, the poster instead of the content of the post.

[Common Sense Party]

146. Meh. I think it's MUCH ado about nothing. I don't pay any attention

to rec counts, and can't imagine why it would bother someone to have their anonymous internet post unrecced. Or recced.

[stuntcat]

158. yah, unrecs are Duummmb.

and a LOT of words are wasted around here on bitter unproductive fighting

[jgraz]

40. For one, I would allow this thread to continue unlocked.

Something that won't happen here.

[OmahaBlueDog]

49. You really think they'll lock this?

It's pretty tame; it's not calling anyone out; and it's not intended as being critical of the mods.

OTOH, there is some discussion of sex threads and bidets.

[jgraz]

52. Eventually, it will make someone nervous

That's the problem with a website that censors content. You can always find a reason to stop any discussion.

[Common Sense Party]

135. Except that the admins have recently said they want to make the site better.

This thread--hopefully--will serve by providing helpful, constructive suggestions.

[Uncle Joe]

43. I would reflect both rec and unrec totals and I wouldn't allow advertising for Republican

candidates over Democrats.

Having said that I believe overall, they run an excellent, user friendly website.

Thanks for the thread, OmahaBlueDog.

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. You are welcome, Uncle Joe

..and I agree, overall the site is well run.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

87. Agreed. And I'd find a way to limit the daily number of unrecs fron any one member,

such as--

--A maximum of three unrecs a day--or, even better--
--Banking one future unrec for each 10 cumulative positive recs earned by that member's OPs

Anything to limit anonymous negativity that could drive away the most popular writers from the site, rather than empower them.

And, to encourqge unreccers to engage in open debate rather than anonymous attack on popular writers,

(1) Eash unrec would kick a thread to the top of page 1, just like a reply; and
(2) Each reccer or unreccer would be identified by name in lines just below the OP.

[MilesColtrane]

45. I'd ban anybody who used the words "epic fail" as a reply to a post.

[jgraz]

48. .

I don't even need to say it. :D

[MilesColtrane]

59. You could have gone with, "Heroic Fiasco".

That won't get you put you on THE LIST.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. 325% Less Complaining

And trials for 1000+ post DUers rather than instant TSing.

[stuntcat]

161. yah!

I've come to think a bunch of people just sign on here when they're feeling fighty :(
If that bitter MEAN crap achieves something good then that's fine but far as I've seen it's just people showing their tails.

[potassiumnitrate]

57. About 99% of everyone here would've been banned by yesterday (nm)

[Major Hogwash]

60. I wouldn't lock sex threads. More better sex threads is what we need.

We could have a whole dating section, and play matchmaker!!

Put e-harmony out of biz.

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

[Regret My New Name]

62. I'd make more use of the marquee and blink tags

[Odin2005]

69. It would be for actuall left-wingers, not Blue Dogs.

[OmahaBlueDog]

94. Odin, someday you will get your wish and Skinner will TS me

...I don't know what to tell you until then :shrug:

[leftstreet]

71. I'd call it Working Class Underground

I'd let anybody in who stood in solidarity with the We the Peons

I like DU the way it is, for what it is. But I'd enjoy a site that completely ignored both parties.

[HughBeaumont]

74. The same, only no Free Traitor, Laissez-Fail Reaganomic advocates.

No job offshoring supporters. No bullshit about how globalization is fair for everyone and not zero-sum. That's not even Blue Dog economics, that's Republican. The last 30 years have proven this crapola agenda to be a joke.

Burns me up that these unprogressive idiots consider themselves Democrats while supporting the destruction of American worker livelihood, and in turn, the economy.

[Blue_Tires]

76. My site would be EXACTLY like DU aside from one difference:

Instead of discussing politics we'd all discuss sex:nuke: :silly: :yoiks:

[EFerrari]

77. I would have a really good taco stand

and on call babysitters. :)

[OmahaBlueDog]

95. Would it serve beer?

:beer:

[QC]

81. No bulletproof trolls. n/t

[HughBeaumont]

103. THIS.

Two in particular who are thankfully now TS'd . . . absolutely ridiculous.

It's bad enough my ignore list is STILL filled with unbanned, multiple alerted-upon supply-side Kool-Aid chuggers and serial flamethrowers.

[backwoodsbob]

83. it would basically be DU EXCEPT I would be a naughty mod

if you have a habit of trolling you may log in to a troll under the bridge avatar one day.if you have a habit of strawman arguments..your avatar may become the scarecrow.If your user name is poniesandunicorns but every other word you post is fuck or shit...your name would be changed to poniesandunicorns can f'ing die.

In short...I'd fuck with people :hippie:

[OmahaBlueDog]

98. Love it!

[Control-Z]

198. Best idea yet!!

What fun that would be.

[bvar22]

85. My site would focus on "Issues Advocacy" instead of "Party Advocacy."

*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*Strong Environmental Protections


When politicians of either Party move toward the above, we would support them.
When they move away, we would organize OPPOSITION to them regardless of Party affiliation.

We would direct funding and support to individual politicians who acknowledge these as worthy goals.
For a Political Party to gain our support, that Party would have to acknowledges these values, and give them a seat at the table.

[superduperfarleft]

86. Zero tolerance for furries. n/t

[seabeyond]

128. lol

you are bringing this from the lounge, naughty you.

[stuntcat]

162. oh noooo

:*

[H2O Man]

89. I'd add a

men's forum to DU.

[and-justice-for-all]

90. I am content with DU as it is, I have no complaints...nt

[dimbear]

97. Give any poster with 10,000 posts a sparkling new energy efficient

toaster. Fair is fair.

[OmahaBlueDog]

200. As long as it is American made in a Union shop

....because this is DU, dammit!

[Redstone]

100. Well, it'd probably be pretty lame, full of vulgarities, and not well-maintained.

Redstone

[JNelson6563]

105. Anyone who was consistently

confrontational and uncivil would be booted.

Julie

[bigwillq]

106. I wouldn't publish PMs in the public forums

I respect my users' privacy.

[rucky]

112. I'd add one forum that has no rules: The Sandbox

People who don't want to, or can't follow the civility rules can go to the Sandbox - voluntary or by force (depending on rule violations in other forums). Freepers, too. No tombstones - just sandbox.

[OmahaBlueDog]

115. I thought about suggesting that to Skinner

A minimally moderated (only looking for copyright violation and physical violence threats), no-holds-barred forum.

[seabeyond]

129. any rules? nt

[Sheepshank]

124. up the ease for written expression

I'd make a list of icons visible at the top of the 'post' page. One need only to highlight a portion of their post (text), and with one click, bold, italisize, change font size or color and more importantly wrap something in a quote box. Looking up and invoking the HTML is a pain. I have the bold and italic html memorized, but still would be easier to highlight and click

[harun]

136. I would TS all the Blue Dogs - especially those from Nebraska.

[OmahaBlueDog]

144. As I knew you would

You wouldn't be a Penn State fan?

[harun]

178. Nah, I'm not a native Pennsylvanian.

[sendero]

137. It wouldn't be party oriented..

... it would be issues oriented. Parties no longer mean much to me as they are pretty much the same when the rubber meets the road.

[underpants]

141. More soup

[OmahaBlueDog]

145. ..and a salad bar

[Beetwasher]

142. I Would Beam It Directly To Your Cerebral Cortex

And then suck out your PIN numbers.

[OmahaBlueDog]

143. You need to go do that over in Freeperville

They are the wealthiest 1%. Our PIN numbers won't get you squat.

[Jamastiene]

151. Lol, it would have the same kickass fully threaded format,

if I could find it. That much would have to be the same for it to be completely comfortable in my mind.

I know that's not what you asked, but it is the thing I love most about DU, the layout of the place is phenomenal.

The difference at my forum would be that homophobia in all forms would not be tolerated at all, and that includes the condescending attitude I see all too often here. No racism or sexism. No snobbery either. Rich or poor wouldn't matter, just don't be an ass to someone who cannot afford things or needs a leg up in life to get on their feet.

I doubt very seriously it would be a political forum either. So many people that I know are set in their ways when it comes to politics. I would probably allow a few sections for each party and for independents. And maybe a Fight Club section, for all of them to duke it out with each other. In that section, I may not even enforce any rules. It would be understood that the rules don't get followed in any Fight Club type forums, except no spamming. The no spamming thing would be a forum wide rule that would be followed as best I could.

Otherwise, the entire point of my forum would be for people who love nature, including flora and fauna, to bring up different species they have spotted and post information and pictures about the species...and to post pictures of their pets and gardens or trips to remote places they may take on vacation.

It would probably have a news section off to the side, some photography contests, a gardening section, a humor section and whatever else we decided to add. It would not be a high volume/heavy traffic type forum, but it would be a hosting nightmare for the amount of server space needed for all the pictures and videos.

If possible, I would have a Lounge type area that was 3d, if possible. I'm not sure how I would do it, but imagine the Palace software mixed with the old Cybertown idea, but only for members of the board. That might be fun, if possible.

That's just my little fun idea, off the top of my head. Too bad most freebie software and hosted forums on the net don't offer the fully threaded option though.

[OmahaBlueDog]

204. It sounds very relaxing...except the fight club

I think they need something like that here. SOmeone suggested the concept of the "sandbox" elsewhere in the thread. I like the idea of a minimally moderated, no-holds barred forum.

[saltpoint]

153. I'd have a serious uptake in choices of local beers, pus

maybe have the naked dancing start at 9:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, instead of the current midnight.

[upi402]

154. I'd give everyone a special sparkle pony of their very own...

so they could comb it's main and dream of an actual opposition party.

[OmahaBlueDog]

169. Awwwwww.......

That is so sweet.

[Recursion]

155. I'd prevent anonymity

Tie the online persona to a verifiable real-life identity.

[OmahaBlueDog]

168. Seriously, that could get a lot of people fired from jobs

Lots of winger business owners would happily find an excuse to fire a DUer.

[Recursion]

176. Probably, but "my own political website" wouldn't be nearly as big as DU

It would be something closer to the long-form conversations you see on Slate.

[LLStarks]

156. More common sense progressivism. nt

[dkf]

167. Mods there just for policing personal attacks.

Other than that anything goes.

[OmahaBlueDog]

174. I think they have to be there to patrol for copyright violation

Spamming prevention I'm all for

A little bit of name calling I don't mind. However, there have been plenty of instances where I've been ticked off/ticked people off in one thread, only to agree with them 100% in another. As long as the name calling doesn't involve the seven dirty words, I'm OK.

[dkf]

177. Yeah of course the place needs to protevt itself against legal violations

Regarding the personal attacks, those seem to devolve the discussion very quickly. I would try to aim for a higher level of discussion even if it didn't completely toe the liberal line.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

185. Sigh...

[OmahaBlueDog]

201. I have no idea....

Apropos of nothing....I went to the University of California. There were (back then) profs as unpopular as Prof. Yoo is. But there was a notion of "The Marketplace of Ideas." Basically, the thought process was get all of the ideas out there, and let them stand and fall on their own merits. Some ideas are bad, but some sound bad initially, but stand the test of time by being defended against repeated attack. The good ideas survive and flourish.

I suppose, for example, that DU could (and perhaps does) ban Holocaust deniers. It's always a tempting idea, as they represent an abhorrent and stubborn idiocy. However, someone I know quite well is something of an expert on captured German records in US possession. This friend has been called upon to testify in Canada against Holocaust deniers. This is in a professional capacity, as an expert witness. Canada has a funny law that essentially makes it a criminal offense to utter a known falsehood, and my understanding is that they use this against Holocaust deniers. Now, my friend is the polar opposite of a denier. In fact, my friend would tell you that the Nazis very efficiently documented their crimes, and that there were (at the time, anyway) thousands of material witnesses. Nevertheless, my friend dislikes the Canadian law. The reasoning is that no idea or concept should be so sacred or so protected that it is excused from challenge. It's the notion that every idea should be subject to re-examination and scrutiny.

As previously stated, this is apropos of nothing. But I'm sorry I never got to know what was written and what ended up being the response.

[Old Troop]

192. Before you could post, you'd have to acknowledge my divinity.

[OmahaBlueDog]

202. In order for that to happen, you would need to prove your divinity.

Could you, for example, have a plague of frogs decend upon the Glen Beck rally?

[MrScorpio]

205. It'll be all Hate Mail Bag and Top Ten Conservative idiots

With lots of vanity posts

[OmahaBlueDog]

207. That's the first time I've seen the term "Vanity Post" here.

They love that phrase over at Free Republic (no - I'm not implying either of us spend a lot of time over there). What constitutes a vanity post, in your opinion?

Otherwise, I'd be fine with "all Hate Mail Bag and Top Ten Conservative idiots." Could we throw in "smut?" (See the next post down.)

[MrScorpio]

217. A "vanity post" is anything that'll generate letters to the Hate Mail Bag

It's completely subjective.

[Ohio Metal]

209. That's great idea!

What ever happened to the "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" weekly post? I know what the last post says but it has been a long time. I miss it.

[jmowreader]

206. Sex threads...

I can't really think of anything Skinner and Co. are doing wrong.

The only thing I can think of to do would be to make a political website called "DUSexThreads.com" and pay Skinner to post a link to it on this site. That way, all the good people with valid political opinions (that means LIBERAL ones, lurking freepers) can post here, and all the dirty old men could go over there to post smut.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

211. Did you know that there was a sex-thread site like five or six years ago?

I'm not going to post details, but it was started by a woman and had nude pictures of DU women that they posted themselves. Were they holding their dicks too?

[seabeyond]

212. so?? shruggin. nt

[LoZoccolo]

213. Would you accuse those women of having this same elaborate set of motives

that you ascribed to the originator of this sub-thread?

[seabeyond]

214. do you still beat your wife? this is not what i am addressing.

i was addressing the poster about all the old men can live in their smut.... his words.

[LoZoccolo]

216. Sorry, I responded to the wrong post.

See below.

[LoZoccolo]

215. What would you see as the difference between the two sites?

It seems like you implied a lot; I'm trying to figure out the extent of it.

[11 Bravo]

218. You could call Ann Coulter a ****.