Thanks Skinner, YOU ROCK!!!

[MohRokTah]

[SidDithers]

1. Agreed...nt

Sid

[Fantastic Anarchist]

27. What happened?

[JHB]

28. For general information purposes...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002&sub=trans

[Fantastic Anarchist]

72. Thank you.

And wow.

[SCantiGOP]

215. Thank you twice

Well-deserved tombstone.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

277. I don't think so, but oh well ...

[Cha]

357. So well deserved.. after all these years.. finally.

[Number23]

397. Exceptionally well deserved and many years overdue.

[Hortensis]

399. 29% of posts HIDDEN?

That certainly suggests you are right.

[cui bono]

458. No. "Percentage of posts hidden: 0.3%" That's well below 1%, not even half a percent.

I'm sure you just looked at it wrong, so you should edit your post if you want to be correct and not mislead people.

.

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. DU gets nary another cent from me.

[JimDandy]

206. 89 % of us DUers are Sanders supporters according to Skinner

I don't believe our membership money is comparable to the ad revenue, though. The power is in the sheer numbers of us, as supporters of the Sanders lawsuit were able to prove to the DNC.

The Clinton coronators (right here in this thread!) have been proclaiming there will be a huge purge in DU membership right after her *inevitable* nomination. But I wonder if 11% of the current postings would still attract the same amount of ad revenue.

The power does not rest in the postings of our more prolific former posters.

The power is in our sheer numbers.

Go BERNIE!!!!

[upaloopa]

259. not a purge. Just those who will not support the nominee. And they purge themselves.

[JimDandy]

276. Do you think 11% of the posters here

can maintain the site's current ad revenue?

The owners have created Discussionist, a right wing haven. I believe it would be very profitable for them to create a progressive underground site for 89% of DUers to flock to after the Great Purge that Clinton supporters say is coming.

[applegrove]

325. We ate heading into election season. There will be

a big increase in DUERS in the months to come.

[Hortensis]

484. JimDandy, not all 89%, IF that number is correct,

are so partisan that they'd leave. Quite the contrary. I have a poor memory for names so now and then I take the time to toss a few names onto lists for people to "talk to" and "should avoid" (like when I want to behave well myself, although I don't necessarily follow my own advice).

The "talk-to" list is for those who strike me as sufficiently reasonable, civil, and politically honest to be able to trade ideas, agreements, disagreements with.

The "avoid" list is for those who strike me as so hostile toward those who have other opinions, too closed-minded, irrational, too aggressively partisan, and/or too dishonest to be willing (or able) that talking to them is really a waste of time.

The lists are very incomplete, but lots of Bernie supporters are on the "talk to" list and it is longer than the "avoid" list.

Those who define themselves more by all the things they are passionately against and want to tear down rather than what they are for and want to build should not imagine that reported 89% is full of people like them. It is not.

[cui bono]

459. Unless you are a Hillary supporter. Then you can say the same thing and stay. n/t

[still_one]

465. Actually they allow leeway on that during the primaries. The reason why he purged himself was NOT

because he "personally" said he would not vote for Hillary in the general election, but because he was encouraging others on DU to follow in his path. It seems like a lot of folks seem to miss that point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

[Hortensis]

468. Thank you, Still One. I saw the advocacy issue when

it was first raised and understood that it was an complete violation of DU's TOC. I'm obviously unclear on what the 29% is about.

[still_one]

471. I am unclear on that also, but being banned verses having a post hidden are different as I

understand it. A hidden post is a judged acceptable or not, based on "community standards". That is determined by a random picked jury of users. A banned post can only be done by an administrator, and from what I have seen it represents a over the top violation of the TOS. The obvious examples are using racist, sexists, etc. expressions.

That is just my personal thoughts on what it entails.

[Hortensis]

486. It's amazing how many choose to think banning

for such blatant cause is an attack on their personal freedom. "Manny" could have expressed himself in a safe way but chose not to.

Like Fox's period of trolling for assassins after Obama's first election by repeatedly wondering if "someone" wouldn't just be so outraged at various things that he'd be driven to try to kill the president -- rather than overtly calling for someone to do it. It worked fine for Fox and some other right-wing voices. They kept it up several times a day for a few weeks -- until being called out by other media -- but didn't face being closed down by the FCC.

[still_one]

488. I agree

[LiberalLovinLug]

503. Thanks for the link

I only wish we could actually participate in that thread. It seems like an important topic here as the primaries come closer.

IMO Ms. Toad raised some very good arguments. (And I see Skinner seems unable or unwilling to respond to her final detailed post) I personally have not see any evidence yet of Manny encouraging others NOT to vote Democratic. Does anyone have any link? Maybe he did, but even if...I find the heavy handedness of the admin incredibly overbearing and unforgiving, with zero grain of salt given in this passionate primary season. Do we need a Democratic Underground Underground now? Why can't there be a little deference shown to long time members especially? I can see it for the hit and run trolls that have few posts. But jeez, the draconian hammer is disturbing and somewhat frightening to witness in here.

NYC_SKP as well, was banned for simply a play on words. He did NOT call anyone the C word. Yes, something rude was implied, but for fucks sake, we are all grownups (I think), we can say shit fuck and asshole on here with no warnings. I think there should be some other stage on DU between hiding a post for a suggestive phrase and outright banning. A week or month time out maybe?

Anyways, I find the loss of Manny to be a big loss for DU itself. Here was someone who tried to use humour and satire to make his point. Some didn't get it, some didn't like it, but I thought it was funny. But satire that makes his targets look more like fools than if he just dryly called them out, has a much greater power to infuriate. I'm sure that Fox News would have loved to have banned Jon Stewart years (decades) ago if they had only had the same power. So a few true believers from the Hillary Defense Corps made it their mission to alert every post they could of Manny until he was gone.

Good job

[still_one]

508. In the post in question he personally indicated who he would vote for in the general election,

whether that person is the nominee or not, and encouraged everyone else to follow suit

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the Admin gave the criteria, and presented three cases. If someone feels compelled to declare that they will not vote for someone in the general election, even if that person wins the primary, and then take it a step further and say you should all do the same thing too, or someone wants to use a play on words, whose intent was to refer to the female candidate with that slur, then those are the ground rules.

We are in control of what we say, and what message we want to convey, and no one here is that naïve that they don't know when they are pushing the limits of what is inappropriate.

No one forces anyone to state who they will vote for in the general election, and I cannot understand why some folks feel the need to push that, but that is their choice if they want to, and if they go too far and it is deemed over the point of no return by the admins, it really shouldn't come as any surprise.

If he wants, he can try to appeal to admins, make a good case, and get them to reconsider, but the final decision will still be the Admins

It would be really nice if people could argue their differences in a civil way, and perhaps gain new insight into why an opinion they may have held may be wrong, but I am skeptical that a lot of people here really want that type of engagement.

"And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence"

1963-1964 Paul Simon, Sounds of Silence

[OilemFirchen]

273. There are 228,675 registered members.

I sincerely doubt that the loss of a gross or so of disruptors will affect the website in any noticeable manner.

[JimDandy]

279. 89% according to Skinner.

[OilemFirchen]

284. 89% of specific candidate supporters.

And, of that, no more than a gross of disruptors. A paltry army of pitiful picayune purists.

[JimDandy]

295. There is great power in numbers. This site financially depends

on the existance of Sanders supporters. No need to disrupt to use that power. Perhaps constructing a site for us which would financially benefit the owners, leave the Clinton supporters alone to promote her policies, and give us a venue to exclusively promote progressive policies. A win-win-win!

[OilemFirchen]

309. Trust me, this site will not be impacted by an exodus of diehard Sanders supporters.

First, because there really aren't that many of them, and second... because there won't be many leaving. Do you really think that the denizens of this board will give up their habit over something so petty?

At any rate, the owners have created DI. If neither DU nor DI is satisfactory for some, they should probably look elsewhere on the web.

[JimDandy]

313. Trust me, they are legion here...and in IRL.

I think the owners can create one more site for the majority of posters here to have a safe haven to promote progressive policies without fear of tombstoning. The owners have already set a precedent for creating sites for conservatives (DI) who were being tombstoned (or would have been under threat of being tombstoned had they posted) from DU. Based on that, I don't think the owners share your "look elsewhere" remark. If there is a buck to be had doing what you're already good at, most business owners will opt to expand their operations.

[OilemFirchen]

317. This site is perfect for promoting "progressive policies".

I've been doing it for a dozen years, as have virtually all with whom I interact. Perhaps you have progressivism confused with ego-inflation, self-edification and personal aggrandizement. If so, I don't think a unique website will accommodate many so afflicted.

Facebook might be a good alternative.

[JimDandy]

318. We disagree and your discourse has become crude

and definitely not in line with the good progressives I interact with.

I accomplished my objective, so...

Bye.

[OilemFirchen]

323. Ta ta.

[Hortensis]

404. Whose hostile presence must repel most mainstream

Democrats who drop by. I came here to get away from right-wing extremists, not realizing this site had become the chosen home for a nest of anti-Democrats and other extremists who mirror much of the behavior of the far right.

The moment management decides to enforce the stated standards of DU across the board, insisting on a higher degree of civility from everyone, my jury votes will support that decision gladly.

[cui bono]

498. I know, me too.

I am so sick of the Tea Bagger mentality of some of the most hostile posters on this board. This OP is a good example as are the posts on the OP's transparency page.

The smearmongering of non-issues is juvenile and Rovian at the same time. If people could just discuss real issues and policy stances this site would be so much better.

.

[Hortensis]

505. Yes. Juvenile and Rovian. :) A mix of viewpoints is good --

as a typical liberal I much prefer that, including a certain amount of strong disagreement -- but balance is necessary too. Something more like the proportions we see both among registered Democrats and the moderate-through-left span in general would be real and probably nicely functional. If extremists and rigidly rhomboid pegs weren't a minority, after all, mankind would have perished long ago.

[MADem]

301. Many more, too, who visit, read, and do not join.

Back in the day we had one helluva LBN page. Some days it's still not bad at all--worth a look, certainly, but not like in the heyday!

[OilemFirchen]

311. I'm looking forward to the end of this Primary.

Then it's back to all snark, all of the time - and aimed at the more deserving targets for a change. I do hate to see so many on the Left so discombobulated and reactionary. It's very disappointing.

[MADem]

312. Me, too--bring it on!

I think we'll know who's committed to the cause by their presence following the decision. We'll know who isn't by their absence.

[Hortensis]

405. Me too. It'll be my first general on DU, and

I'm very interested in seeing how DUers change.

[cherokeeprogressive]

341. 228,675 registered members... 125 of whom post on a regular basis.

[OilemFirchen]

342. Well, they have a mighty hammer and a weak target:

[merrily]

426. As if they all post here regularly. Poster, please.

[OilemFirchen]

428. Nowhere did I say that they post regularly.

They do, however, represent the majority of the contributions to the site. How many of those Sanders disruptors are Star members?

[merrily]

429. That's how many posters have registered over the life of the site and not been banned. The majority

of them wandered off years ago. To be talking about them as though they are still contributing is silly.

The majority of current contributors to DU support Bernie Sanders.

As far as star members, you just moved the goalpost. However, I'm certainly one. You can look up the rest. I'm not obsessive over nonsense like that. You can be a star member by contributing a dollar, I think. Big deal.

[OilemFirchen]

430. "The majority of current contributors to DU support Bernie Sanders."

Bullshit. The only majority they represent is among those who are actively discussing the current Primary. Most of the contributors on the site aren't participating in that process at all.

And I've moved no goalposts. The assertion was made that the mighty force of the Sanders Army leaving this site would have a profound impact on its revenue. I've made the point that a) there aren't that many and b) a very small portion of them will leave. Now c) they're mostly not financial contributors anyway.

The assertion is ridiculous.

[merrily]

432. Take a nap.

[Live and Learn]

452. And the many that joined, lost their passwords and had old email addresses on file and

had to join again. I know there are quite a few old timers posting under more recent names.

[merrily]

474. Thank you!! Yes, and the people who registered under multiple names in case one or more

of the screen names got banned.

Regardless of what accounts for the absences of the hundreds of thousands of screen names that registered at some point. the plain realities are

(1) most of them are not posting regularly now, if they ever did; and

(2) the majority of people who have been posting of late are Sanders' supporters--though that may change, given the departure from the site of MannyGoldstein and other liberals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890

Hillary supporters have been posting for months about how DU is now Bernie Underground, we're in the majority, etc. That someone even tries to argle bargle out of that is entertaining, yet not entertaining enough to me to justify any extended debate.

Thanks again.

[easttexaslefty]

332. Yep

[JimDandy]

344. Just about to head out to a Bernie Debate party

and meet up with one of those other 89%ers from here.

Enjoy the debate...

Go Bernie!

[Bubzer]

208. I was considering becoming a star member until this. I'll just have to donate it to Bernie instead

[JimDandy]

211. There you go! Turn this into a win for Bernie.

Feel the Manny!

(With apologies to Bernie for this temporary usage)

[Bubzer]

216. Totally!

[easttexaslefty]

335. Love this

[rjsquirrel]

343. Yeah right

was considering. And considering.


Poor DU deprived of your consideration.

[Bubzer]

402. DU will survive without my financial support.

Have a great day!

[cwydro]

359. Cool story, bro.

[Hekate]

445. I ... just renewed my Star. Guess it takes all kinds.

[cwydro]

135. There's another poster active now in a recent thread, who said the same thing.

People agree to follow the TOS or hit the road.

I think there's going to be some more after the primaries.

[Drahthaardogs]

172. I was on a jury yesterday for the same statement.

Sadly only two of us knew the TOS. Post was NOT hidden.

[CajunBlazer]

233. Same here - with jury I was on it was 4-3 to leave it alone. (n/t)

[JTFrog]

387. Juries don't uphold the TOS. The administrators do.

The jury system was setup to maintain high community standards. They can of course take the TOS into consideration when voting to hide or leave a post.

There are many things that each DU member can do to help maintain our high standards:

Participating in discussions in a positive and productive way;
Taking advantage of our customization tools so you only see the content you want to see;
Clicking the "Alert abuse" link on disruptive posts;
Serving on member juries to maintain our Community Standards of civility;
Acting as a Host of a forum or group to make sure it stays true to its Statement of Purpose; and
Volunteering to help us identify and exclude obvious disruptors.
There are so many opportunities that we believe every member can help out in some way!

Our Community Standards

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained through the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.

Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.

Just FYI.

[Hortensis]

410. Right now, upholding the TOS against those alerted

on, a level so far above the standard in common practice, would be unfair and would encourage alerting to take out other posters.

If the administrators demand a higher standard of behavior from all of us, closer to the TOS, I will be glad to apply it in my jury decisions. I will participate in a more consistently positive manner myself, something I too often fail to do in this environment.

[Drahthaardogs]

421. IF I serve on a jury and see a blatant violation of TOS I am voting to hide...

Especially when it comes to attacks on other Democrats and calling for Democratic voters to stay home. I have been here since the beginning under several names. We don't do that here. We support Democrats.

[JTFrog]

423. As you should. n/t

[JimDandy]

159. I've often wondered if that TOS violates HAVA...

[haikugal]

204. Is he banned or on a forced vacation?

[Tab]

210. Traditionally banned is banned.

I'm not aware of any "timeouts".

Also traditionally, discussion of banned users is itself banned, which I why I'm surprised to see this shift, but maybe it's a move to more transparency, which is not necessarily bad.

[haikugal]

228. I thought if you have 3 hidden posts within a certain time frame you are forced out for a

given time...a time out. I was hoping that was the case.

[Tab]

249. Yeah, but that wasn't the case.

Spefically saying he wouldn't support the nominee (unless it were Bernie), which goes against the overall we're-advocating-for-our-preferred-dem-candidate-but-we'll-support-the-nominee-whoever-it-is.

Posts that are hidden because the person is being a jerk is one thing, but this was the next level up.

[Matariki]

447. It's 3 months out after 6 posts hidden

[Egnever]

247. Tombstoned

Gone forever.

He will be back though. He is a professional.

[JEB]

434. Sad to lose his funny thoughtful voice.

This diminishes DU.

[haikugal]

477. See post 18...

I agree with you...too many excellent voices lost for reasons that don't make any sense. He was not a troll in any sense of the word I'm familiar with. People that were a part of our lives just disappeared is not what this country is about. If this is how online community is treated what the hell...Animal Farm here we come.

[rhett o rick]

44. And you mean anything that you don't agree with. Alert, lock, hide, ban and then gravedance.

Well you have the power.

[Katashi_itto]

58. This

[Snotcicles]

78. Would be a great time for a donation drive. NOT! nt

[wilsonbooks]

99. Well I guess that all of the avid Hillary supporters here on DU would kick in

Just like they do for Hillary on ACTBLUE

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforhillary

[MohRokTah]

179. ActBlue is a bundling operation.

I only donate directly to presidential campaigns, but will participate in bundling to certain congressional, senatorial, and state level campaigns.

Besides presidential campaigns I find my donations do the most good when donating directly to the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC.

[Gothmog]

290. I have been to a bundler event and made a decent size contribution

It is a different world. I was on a call and some of the procedures for bundling was explained.

I like Actblue but prefer to make my contributions directly to the campaign

[Katashi_itto]

106. I just donated

500 to Bernie today, so yes it is.

[merrily]

199. I think I'll be donating through another board.

[Katashi_itto]

297. I donated directly

What other boards do you recommend?

[Lazy Daisy]

173. Yep

I just gave to Bernie Sanders.

To see details and contribute now please go to: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie


Thanks DU for encouraging me.

[Snotcicles]

185. I meant a star member drive. nt

[bettyellen]

333. Says the person making lists of those he disagrees with- HA.

[bettyellen]

394. we all saw your list in the hosts lounge.

[zappaman]

347. You mean the group of DUers whose alerts he ignores cuz he doesn't like them?

Our "group"?

[bettyellen]

395. that's the one!

[easttexaslefty]

363. Right? N/t

[easttexaslefty]

337. Yep

or should I say this

[easttexaslefty]

361. Aw.

Cute

[SidDithers]

104. Heya...

Has the news of Manny's banning hit DI yet?

Sid

[pintobean]

130. Yeah, that's where I came from.

Came home, logged on to DI, newest thread was about this one, clicked it, clicked the link, served on a jury for a post in this thread right off the bat, then I read the thread.

Saw Manny's thread earlier and knew he would get whacked. He had to know it, too.

[SidDithers]

145. Merrry Christmas to you and yours...

Hope you have a good holiday season.

Sid

[pintobean]

180. Thanks Sid

Right back atcha.

[treestar]

151. went over there to look and immediately got called to jury duty

on a thread about it.

Jury duty is way more common on DI.

http://www.discussionist.com/1015668510

The post juried was
1. The town finally got its enema...nt

[SidDithers]

153. Hey, I recognize that post!...

Sid

[treestar]

160. it got voted to LEAVE

[pintobean]

174. I was on for truebrit's hidden post

I don't take sides in the primary wars. They're pretty stupid.

Total bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7460205

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Broad brush insulting people who don't agree with them as "Morans", a DU neologism generally reserved for far right wing politicians.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:22 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: In the Heat of the Presidential Election I would hope that ALL Democratic supporters would refrain from abusive language and debate in a mature way..this comment is immature and adds nothing to the conversation..
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Although I agree with the sentiment of the poster, telling those other posters "Grow the fuck up you fucking morans" is over the top.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: pb
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What are they talking about here?

[Cha]

373. That's a well deserved hide.

Sorry about yours.. that was BOGUS.

[Cha]

353. Sorry, about the bogus hide you got for telling the truth that they cannot handle.

[merrily]

121. Yes, many have noticed how little disruptive meta from Hillary supporters gets locked.

[Orsino]

77. If anything's lower than grave-dancing...

...it's starting a thread to grave-dance.

[MADem]

282. One person's 'gravedancing' is another person's 'trollbusting.'

Anyone who posts garbage in direct opposition to the TOS here is a troll and does not belong here.

You disagree?

[OilemFirchen]

286. Yup.

This is a party, and the guests are invited. Why some think they can piss all over the furniture is beyond me, and that others cheer them on and mourn their passing is deplorable.

[dlwickham]

407. very well put

[Cha]

382. I agree. well said, MADem!

[Cha]

351. ..

[Cha]

372. manny broke the rules. Skinner and I think it's low to advocate not voting for the Dem nominee and

advocating others to do the same. This is our Country and we're not leaving it to the damn repubs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002

[Orrex]

512. Ask Sanders what he thinks of blatant TOS violations

Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

A man of principle, he likely respects the rules of the house; why should his supporters get a pass?

Despite your implication, Sanders' supporters aren't being run off for supporting Sanders; a very small number of them have been PPRed for explicitly violating the TOS.

[rhett o rick]

514. Despite your rationalization progressives are leaving. Maybe you'll be happy when we are all gone.

[Orrex]

516. And maybe you'll be happy when you've convinced yourself that you're persecuted

You have a conspicuous habit of self-deleting, perhaps to keep from being held accountable for what you post.

Despite your rationalization progressives are leaving. Maybe you'll be happy when we are all gone.

When Manny signed on, he agreed to the TOS, and he agreed that Admin is the arbiter of the TOS. Admin has determined that Manny's post violated the TOS to a degree sufficent to merit the PPR.

I imagine that Manny, a person of conviction, would accept that determination, since it's exactly what he agreed to when he joined.

[Cha]

464. Oh I can think of a few things.. #1 is advocating Others Not to Vote for the Dem Nom.. our Planet

is too important to mess around and give it to the repubs because some poster is all pissy.

[stonecutter357]

241. +1

[easttexaslefty]

331. Typical

Though.

[stevenleser]

418. I think DU in general allows folks to go too far with mean-spirited criticism of Democrats and Manny

was one of the worst.

I thought he was bulletproof and so 3-4 years ago I put him on ignore.

I'm surprised on two accounts. I'm surprised he was PPR'd at all and I am surprised at the reason.

[DURHAM D]

2. Wow.

I guess sometimes it takes a decade to figure things out. Better late than never.

[MH1]

83. You'd Better Believe It. nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

267. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^.

[sharp_stick]

3. What happened?

The admins here usually do a great job.

I assume someone met with an accident.

[B Calm]

114. Brown nosing?

[Fearless]

166. Weren't around for the gay purge were you?

[SusanCalvin]

177. .

[Dragonfli]

232. I was - It is not forgotten by all, we lost a lot of good people to that one.

We lose a lot of good people whenever the purges come upon us.

What I dislike the most are those that like to come and watch the witches burn as if it were a good thing. I find grave dancing repugnant.

[SwampG8r]

436. And the vacuum left by their banning

Was filled b y corporatists and center right dems

[ScreamingMeemie]

384. ...that's the week I stopped believing this place was all about Democratic ideals.

And then, with the influx of people like this guy (who is the person who started this OP? I've never even seen him.), It was all over. I was pretty sure there would be trouble when the admins blatantly picked an avatar before the convention. As a Dean supporter who kept her candidate choice under wraps during the '04 primaries when I was a mod, I can only shake my head at them. It becomes apparent our donations are mere petty cash.

[Skidmore]

4. Thank you...

Happy Holidays.

[Orrex]

5. Posting here because I don't want to miss out on the shit storm to follow.

[SidDithers]

7. It's about to get medieval around here...

I think I'll just keep my head down for the next couple days.



Sid

[MohRokTah]

17. I figure this thread will be amongst my last posts for a few days.

[Mojorabbit]

178. That will be a blessing. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

314. :)

[Plucketeer]

214. We'll miss you!

[MohRokTah]

224. I'll lurk a bit.

A few posts in GD later in the week maybe.

GDP is off the menu for now.

[GusBob]

26. I am with you brother

[1StrongBlackMan]

144. LOL .. I know! ...

[GusBob]

6. Agreed.

Disruptive for years. Long time coming

Fell on his sword fighting a losing battle in a lost cause

Martyrdom awaits, in 3,2,1.....

[GGJohn]

8. You rock MohRokTah for recognizing that skinner rocks.

[Rose Siding]

9. Totally

[JoePhilly]

10. ummm ....

[Orrex]

11. Somebody posted spoilers, or tried to.

[JHB]

33. The Gungan butler did it...

[backscatter712]

52. Jar Jar Binks is a Dark Lord of the Sith!

[JoePhilly]

16. ok ...

the rumor I just heard ... is the location is more likely in the NE.

[dorkzilla]

22. Guess it'll come.out soon, whatever it is

I hate cryptic posts.

[longship]

21. Cali is currently showing active. So no. nt

[dorkzilla]

24. Okay, thanks for the update

[JHB]

37. See post 28 above

[treestar]

48. non Democrats to the left are allowed

on DU. The only limit on them is encouraging voting for a party other than Democrats in election season.

However some of the Sanders supporters are likely to go the way of the 08 Pumas. They are too invested now. They've ginned up their anti-Hillary-ness to the point where they can't vote for her in the GE.

[Fearless]

123. My dear, Hillary will lose the nomination

Again.

[haikugal]

388. Was she? Damn....

[dorkzilla]

390. No, it just so happened that I was on a jury for her 2 seconds before this thread started.

when she declared her disillusion with the party. Since they’re gunning for her in a really bad way, I just thought the merriment was their glee over that. My mistake.

I had NO idea they hated Manny this much, I’m still stunned.

ETA: I just deleted the thread because I didn’t want to cause anymore confusion.

[haikugal]

391. Thanks dorkzilla...much appreciated.

There's a witch hunt going on for anyone who will not O B E Y! I thought we lived in a democracy!

[dorkzilla]

393. Oh, silly naive haikugal!

Democracies are not for us little people! We should be honored that they let us sit at the same table with them! Okay I know we’re actually under the table but still, we’re close! And if we act REEEEEEAAAAALLLLLY nice, maybe enough crumbs will fall from the table to nourish us!

[haikugal]

409. They'd call the dogs before they'd let us have those crumbs.

Too many eaters dontchaknow...

[longship]

13. What's this about?

[NYC Liberal]

15. K&R. Thanks, Skinner.

[George II]

18. Thanks.

[etherealtruth]

20. skinner almost always rocks!

[NutmegYankee]

23. I'm going to take cover now.

[boston bean]

30. It's going to be a long day. But one that should have happened moons ago.

I'm going to go out and finish up my Christmas shopping and then come back to watch the show.

I'm feeling the tremors as I type! LOL

But good on admin for hauling out some garbage that's been stinking up the place for a long time.

[JoePhilly]

36. ok, that's funn!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. Thanks to Skinner.

[William769]

29. Thank you!

Looks like we could use a couple more thank you threads.

[boston bean]

39. Really? I only know of this one.... curious as to what you are meaning..

[William769]

41. Christams future.

[boston bean]

42. ah...

[BooScout]

31. Thank You!

[Stellar]

32. WOW...there really is someone named 'Skinner' here and not computer generated?

So all of my messages were not in vain?

[Nye Bevan]

64. Yes (WARNING: this may make you feel old)

[Rose Siding]

94. Aw, the guys!

They've had a positive influence on my life for almost 15 years. And look at them there! just lil pups

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

118. I think the pic was taken when DU began in 2001

Here they are after nearly 15 years of administrating DU:

[Nye Bevan]

149. Thanks for the updated picture! (nt)

[flying rabbit]

184. Rough job...

[Stellar]

398. Oh Lawd!

So he's twelve, right, LOL!

Thanks

ETA: although I am old.heh!

[tavernier]

492. I see three, but where is Wolowitz?

😄😄

Well, there goes my get out of jail free card.

[yallerdawg]

34. Happy Holidays, Skinner!

You, too, MRT!

[hobbit709]

35. Let the purges begin.

[Rose Siding]

43. Let Democratic Underground function with an objective.

Electing Democrats. It's basic to the TOS

[rhett o rick]

49. He said nothing about not voting for a Democrat. He just didn't want to vote for HRC. But continue

to rationalize if it makes you feel better.

[Egnever]

236. Nonsense he has been bashing dems for over a decade now

Point to a single positive Dem post he made just one I will wait. His posts were always negative towards Democrats. Always pointing out flaws never promoting anything positive. It was an act and he got damn good at it. The purpose from the beginning was tearing down Dems. That is why he was known as third way many. He got smarter as time went on and realized he could easily attack dems from the left and became quite proficient at it but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose from the beginning has always been to sow dissatisfaction with democrats.

[rhett o rick]

240. You guys don't like people that speak their minds. He tried to hold Democrats accountable

which I know you don't understand. He is a better Democrat than those that hide from issues and idolize the wealth of the 1%.

[Egnever]

243. I am not surprised he fooled you.

He fooled many.

[Cha]

374. You can boomerrang that statement right back yourself. Besides manny's mind advocated others

not to vote for the Dem nominee.

And, Skinner's the one who banned him.. are you accusing Skinner of not letting people speak their minds?

Because I think he does until they break the rules.

[rhett o rick]

495. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that some here don't like opposition of any kind.

It's a small minority but with alerts, locks and hides, it seems to me that they are attempting to shut up those that don't agree.

It seems to me that some progressive here get frustrated and lash out. It's too bad because that plays right into the hands.

It's my opinion that progressive Democrats like to debate issues and I believe that's a good thing.

[uponit7771]

494. Speaking ones mind and advocating voting against the dem nominee is 2 different things

[Mojorabbit]

246. What the hell is wrong with pointing out flaws? nt

[Egnever]

250. Not a thing

But if that is all you can do you are not a Dem supporter. Over ten years here I never saw him post one positive thing about democrats.

Feel free to find a post where he praised a Dem for anything ever without it being used to tear another Dem down. I would be willing to bet you can't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

272. Thread Winner!

[valerief]

305. You mean like his "Republicans are the enemy" post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026546216

[Egnever]

330. Exactly like that

Republicans are the enemy but we need to get rid of our guys. Classic Many.

[valerief]

356. No, we need to get rid of our weak Dems and replace them with strong Dems is what

he was saying.

[Number23]

400. "It was an act and he got damn good at it."

But he wasn't. Not even a little bit.

[Egnever]

412. Clearly he was

look how many he fooled here.

[Number23]

439. And you think that was hard for him? Or for anyone?

To fool the easily foolable?

[Blue_Tires]

302. Come on now... You've been around long enough to know

Anybody pulling that "I'm not voting in the general election unless *MY* candidate is the nominee" -shit is playing with fire... Higher profile members than Manny got themselves banned in 04, 08, and 12 for doing the same thing...

[rhett o rick]

308. I do know that for some, rationalization is the key to happiness. Seems like there is always

justification. Some progressives get banned and some get ridiculed off.

[Blue_Tires]

521. So take it up with the big man, then (i.e. Skinner)

[Historic NY]

101. Boom +1

[betterdemsonly]

420. The orignal poster has stated several times they will not vote for Sanders if

he is the nominee. They have a 0 percent chance of serving on a jury yet they are still posting.

[NYC Liberal]

57. Advocating voting against Democrats has been a TOS violation

For many years. Definitely since I got here in 2004.

[Trajan]

141. Let's look at your statement ...

"Advocating voting against Democrats has been a TOS violation" ..

During the Primary Season, each party chooses one nominee from a group of possible nominees in the same political party.

For instance ... Hillary Clinton, a Democrat at least by self identification and party membership, is vying to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, as is Martin O'Malley ...

Say, a DUer advocates to vote for Hillary ... And, at the same time, advises other members to NOT vote for Martin O'Malley ...

To say that one should not vote for Martin O'Malley, that is ADVOCATING AGAINST VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT, and therefore, a violation of the TOS ...

Had anybody here in this thread ever recommended that DUers NOT vote for Martin O'Malley? ... Well, there you go .... TOS violators galore ...

ANYBODY and EVERYBODY in DU who advocates against ANY democrat would violate that rule ...

Manny should be reinstated immediately ...

[NYC Liberal]

181. The poster in question was talking about voting against the Democrat in the GENERAL election

not the primaries. They stated it outright. That's what they were rightfully given the boot for.

No one is talking about advocating against one Democratic candidate in the primaries. That's silly and not what the TOS refer to.

[LiberalLovinLug]

182. Here here!

But is more that some people on here cannot take or understand satire. Maybe because that form of criticism works so well to expose hypocrisy and weakness in their own positions. These are folks that probably thought, along with some righties, that Stephen Colbert actually WAS a Bill O'Reilly clone.

Manny died of a thousand knives. If they alerted on enough of his posts, they knew odds were they'd finally get enough jurors like themselves on enough panels to quiet his voice on here. Congratulations!

[TheBlackAdder]

40. Show your appreciation by becoming a paying member!

.


This country, and its democracy, still uses the oil of capital to operate on.


.

[MohRokTah]

47. I will in January

This the week before Christmas.

[yallerdawg]

63. A couple MORE...

and I'll buy in, too!

[Dont call me Shirley]

93. This country uses the capital of oil to function on.

[Nye Bevan]

45. But what about all the Hillary supporters who have pledged not to vote for Bernie in the general,

if he wins the nomination?

Whoops, my bad, not one single Hillary supporter here has ever said that.

[MohRokTah]

50. I can honestly say four words will repeat in my head should Sanders be nominated.

And they will repeat over and over and over and over ad infinitum.

"Lesser of two evils"

[rpannier]

522. My answer when people say they won't support the Dem Nominee

Be it HRC, Sanders or O' Malley

"Stare into the mirror and say 3x, Alito and Roberts. Then maybe your perspective will return."

[rhett o rick]

51. Ah but they have but get a pass. nm

[Rose Siding]

59. Read

There haven't been any.

[sharp_stick]

73. To be banned

someone needs to say that they will not vote for the nominee if so and so isn't nominated or a certain candidate is nominated.

If you have an example of a Clinton supporter saying one of these I'd sure like to see it.

[SidDithers]

87. And, you have to convince the Admins that you really mean it...

Skinner's comments in ATA are pretty enlightning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598967



Sid

[Cha]

378. No, you obviously don't "get" anything. We don't advocate others to not vote for the Dem nominee.

like manny did. End of story.

[Nye Bevan]

61. Thanks for the link that proved your point (nt)

[rhett o rick]

68. Hey it's not like we don't get it, we just ask for a little fairness. nm

[Cha]

355. Nobody gets a pass for saying they will not vote for the Dem nominee and advocates others to do

the same.

manny broke the rules.

[backscatter712]

56. You'll see them crying over their beer in HillaryIs44.org. n/t

[krawhitham]

163. Something that happened 08 when they said they would not vote Obama

NOTHING

TPTB at DU & the DNC have a lot in common

[Doctor_J]

307. you mean like the op, who posted this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=744715

And got away with it?

The Chosen One has attracted supporters of a very slimy ilk.

[neverforget]

414. Here's a Hillary supporter that won't vote for Bernie if he's the nominee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=625547

[Chef Eric]

490. Are you sure?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804

[onehandle]

46. Yep.

The TOS is going to bring the hammer down on more.

Mark my words.

[William769]

53. Celebration

[Spazito]

54. ....

[pnwmom]

55. Thanks from me, too!

I saw that thread and wished I hadn't.

[BainsBane]

60. About fucking time!

And thank you, thank you, thank you, Skinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Merry Christmas!!!!!!

[MineralMan]

62. Difficult decision, I imagine.

I'm out of this for the duration, though. I think I'll keep my focus on campaign issues.

[MohRokTah]

65. I'm going to lay low for a few days

I smell a shitstorm coming.

[MineralMan]

69. Could well be.

[MohRokTah]

75. Look at that post down below.

It's already hit.

[rhett o rick]

71. Why worry you got the power? nm

[cherokeeprogressive]

348. Lay low after grave-dancing? Why?

[MohRokTah]

349. To miss out on the massive meltdown...

which is already ongoing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

350. You know what I find completely disgusting and indicative of what DU has become? That YOU...

Who has been here barely a year and a half, can get away with dancing on the grave of someone who's been here for over a decade.

That makes me wanna puke.

Tell ya what though... DU has seen its last dime from me. Of that you can be sure.

[Rex]

360. Been here barely a year and a half?

Oh you mean as that username, right I agree. It is interesting how some here can get multiple timeouts and others get the axe with nary a hide. And some others that get banned and alllowed back on here "if they play nice".

[neverforget]

416. And look what the author of this thread said in September

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=625547

[cherokeeprogressive]

491. Of course that gets a pass. nt

[MineralMan]

76. Difficult for the admins.

I'm not going to participate in any grave dancing over this. The poster in question was very prolific and had many fans here.

[rhett o rick]

79. And he is a good Democrat. nm

[MineralMan]

84. OK. As you say.

The floor is yours. I yield the remainder of my time.

[rhett o rick]

90. The wealthy 1% may buy this election but sooner or later the People will prevail and

get rid of the corruption that controls our Party at the top.

[Kingofalldems]

80. I always liked and respected Manny.

He said the magic words though.

[randome]

86. Say them often enough and you disappear instead of Beetlejuice appearing.

Strange thing, spells.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Curmudgeoness]

89. Thanks for saying it.

I am always disgusted when the grave dancing starts up. And I will say this at the risk of DU death...You are the voice of reason in this thread.

[Chef Eric]

155. And now DU will be a much less interesting place. nt

[Cha]

379. Take it to Skinner if you don't like it that he banned manny for breaking the rules. It's his board.

[BainsBane]

67. Jury results

On Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:38 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Thanks Skinner, YOU ROCK!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027460023

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I could cut and paste the DU TOS which are routinely used to justify a hide, but, it would be pointless. Grave dancing is so unbecoming and is this what DU has become?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:45 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grave dancing the demise of a GOP troll is very becoming! Thank you, Skinner. At long last that one is slayed!!!!!!!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Skinner does rock...
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: gas on the fire
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Skinner was TSed?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Grave dancing.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[William769]

82. ...

[ucrdem]

138. .

[Cha]

385. Juror #1 "Grave dancing the demise of a GOP troll is very becoming! Thank you, Skinner. At long last

At long last that one is slayed!!!!!!!"

And boohoo to the alerter

Thank you, BB!

[ScreamingMeemie]

422. Happily, he got his vacation on another post.

And I don't even know who this person is. Suddenly, he's all over the place.

[BainsBane]

424. It's not a vacation

He was banned.

[ScreamingMeemie]

425. I'm talking about the OP here. Thank you.

The person he's talking about has nothing to do with my comment. Did you not post the jury results on the OP???

[NBachers]

74. I used to think his threads and comments were entertaining, but the novelty wore off a long time ago

It's been a long time since I clicked on one of his bait-posts.

Too clever for me.

[PowerToThePeople]

81. After I saw the poll

I figured a ban was going to happen because of the content.

Even for him, it seemed a pretty far out post.

[MohRokTah]

91. There's a definite pattern.

Saying you won't vote for so and so should they not be nominated during primary season in a response post is usually blown off as heat of the moment and won't get you banned. They do give latitude during the primaries.

It appears to be a crossed line when you start an OP saying that stiff AND encouraging others to do likewise.

Skinner explained it in a post a while back.

And the same pattern has played out in two high profile poster incidents now.

[rhett o rick]

100. You guys have had it in for him for years with the constant alerts, etc. And you got the power but

gravedancing is pathetic.

[OilemFirchen]

294. It was entrapment!

[kath]

450. What poll? I didn't see any poll by Manny.

[PowerToThePeople]

451. I mispoke

it was just a post.

There was another poll asking GE vote questions I read about the same time. My brain must have been fuzzy when I posted.

[a la izquierda]

92. +1

I'm sticking to Photography at this point.

[Curmudgeoness]

98. I'm with you.

The few times that I get sucked into reading in other places, I just get sick to my stomach. See you in Photography!

[countingbluecars]

97. Rules are rules.

No need to call other Duers crude names. Perhaps you should grow up.

[truebluegreen]

88. Making a list, checking it twice

[randys1]

95. As I am no longer a part of either side of the Dem party, given both sides have banned

me since I have the audacity to say getting a dem elected is more important than getting any one individual elected...

I only have this to say


La dee la, la dee lee

[MH1]

107. But you're still welcome in the MO'M group, right?

Who knows, perhaps the side that's staying clean will ultimately be the one that comes out on top.

Just sayin'.

[randys1]

109. Oh yeah, I am...What is absolutely HYSTERICAL about this is

without even getting out of bed today I will still do more for this party and electing dems and protecting the right to vote than 90% of those here who have barred me from participation.

[MH1]

111. Oh, I am sure that's true.

Actually you should probably take it as a badge of honor to have been banned by both groups.

[Laser102]

191. I've been banned too. Not really sure from where. Or why. Oh well, maybe I'll check into it. LOL

[LittleBlue]

96. lmao @ people thinking any banned member stays banned on this site

Now I just need to learn Manny's new account name.

[rhett o rick]

102. MIRT makes sure that no Sanders supporters that get banned return. nm

[Agschmid]

105. MIRT bans trolls, both sides have them, and you know it.

[rhett o rick]

126. And I think you are serious. I think you may actually think it's fair here.

That Sanders supporters are treated fairly. Tell me this, does MIRT have 80% Sanders representation?

[treestar]

129. FCOL

This is not Bernie Underground.

[zappaman]

143. MIRT consists of volunteers and every troll gets banned regardless of who they pretend to support.

Unlike some hosts who play favorites...

[treestar]

128. MIRT makes sure nobody who was banned returns.

[Rex]

133. Kewl story.

[rhett o rick]

200. So do you check the ISP's of all new members?

[treestar]

202. MIRT banns people for returning

if they can - isn't that their function.

Maybe some get by. But someone with a sock is just that, whether they supported Bernie or Hillary.

[Rex]

108. Which makes this OP ironic.

But it is funny watching some pray for a shitstorm...looks like a fizzle but it keeps them happy.

[LittleBlue]

115. They're actually grave dancing over an account being banned

Not a person. On a site notorious for banned posters coming back with new accounts.


Reading this thread is like

[Rex]

131. It's a game for many here.

Nobody can be that serious and stupid at the same time imo.

[rhett o rick]

203. I know people that were banned and they can't get back in.

MIRT is very "vigilant".

[Octafish]

116. Operation Mind Crime

EGGZACK SAME!

[Rex]

146. And a lot of other usernames no doubt.

However getting people to say they will not vote for the other dem if they win is stupid. GD-P is just a wasteland for the brain imo.

[Octafish]

209. I don't know what just happened...

...if it's what the Swarm has done to me, they grind away until one posts in anger a reply that goes over the line. They're good at it. Trained, like.

[Rex]

213. True but I notice now they

have nothing to throw at you anymore. They just leave a stupid comment or two if you don't reply back. And when you reply back with a photocopy or pic or original source etc.. they flee and don't return. My opinion is that they cannot actually debate your evidence so they try drive by posts hoping you will reply.

Manny was just a pain in the ass to many of them, I suspect the epic MIRTs here that have been mods and on MIRT since the site started knows his original DU name etc.. They live in a spiderweb of socks imo. All of them.

Just look at their posts, all their charts and crayons and gold stars.. but WE are the CTers here on DU. You and me.

It makes me lmao most of the time now.

Manny did what loonix did and got banned, so he had to know it was going to happen. More red vs blue team shit imo.

[Octafish]

255. We are well into our second decade together...

...We've agreed a lot more than we disagreed. Unlike the Swarm and the Spidersockwalkers, though, even while disagreeing we always respect one another. We state our POVs and go on. Still chums after all these years. The others work an acid between people that makes it hard for the community to come together.

The gold stars are something. OT Reminds me of the time Smirko told the Gold Star mother not to sell her pretzeldental coin on eBay:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1828225

Who read that in The New York Times? Who saw that on CIABCNNBCBSFauxFearNutworks?

[Rex]

269. Yeah Dubya was a real scumbag.

Never worked a day in his life and thanks to the M$M, never needed to.

[Hekate]

448. Yeesh, you really think he was OMC?

Really, I began to think Manny was invulnerable.

[Octafish]

470. Not Manny. Manny is a DEMOCRAT.

One of the big gravedancers who pretends to be a Democrat.

[treestar]

127. His schtick is pretty clearly recognizable

though. He'd get banned quickly unless he changed it. He is smart though. He managed ten years and I do believe he is a right winger playing with us. He might be creative enough to find another way.

[LittleBlue]

175. He's just eccentric

Every site has an oddball or two. Someone who takes ridiculously contrary opinions or takes on a different persona.

Manny got God-knows-how-many ad clicks for this website with his Third Way Manny posts.

In 2008, DU's favored candidate won. So the purge of Hillary supporters didn't hurt the site so badly, although I don't think the site ever really recovered its old traffic numbers. What happens when Hillary is the nominee? This site is around 5-1 against her. The enthusiasm will drop through the floor. Trump won't be enough to scare people into sticking around. You've seen what people are saying now, it's going to get much more bitter by the end.

Major problems ahead.

[Squinch]

274. I think you underestimate Trump.

If he's the Republican nominee, I think people will be reading DU.

[Flying Squirrel]

456. He's so clever that he moved to jackpineradicals.org

A site dedicated to electing Bernie Sanders. Man, talk about devious.

[treestar]

469. He can continue playing them there

Without any pushback.

[betsuni]

472. I have the feeling that the fictional "echo chamber" in their imagination that's so derided

here won't be very satisfying when there's an actual real-life echo chamber there. If there's nobody to insult and call stupid, how can you feel smarter than everyone else even though you're wrong about everything?

[Historic NY]

110. Hey can I get my hide back.......now.

[Fearless]

117. That's not how it works

[Historic NY]

125. I was right.....it just took a longer time to prove it.

[Fearless]

136. You're not right.

[Fearless]

113. Ohh Skinner you stepped in it again.

I will not be renewing membership. I sat by while you blundered through the gay purge. Not sitting by when you target democratic posters.

[Rex]

119. What do you expect them to do with folks that demand candidate loyalty?

That won't vote and encourage others not to vote for the other candidate if they win? You have to admit that is crap and not very progressive.

[Fearless]

132. Advocating against a democrat during a primary

Has never been an issue before.

[Rex]

139. That was not the issue.

The issue is getting people to say they will not vote for the other democrat if they win the nomination. Why? That is dumb imo.

[Fearless]

147. Again, during a primary this has never been an issue

I guess everyone who liked the post should be tombstoned too?

[Rex]

150. I have to admit I was not here for last primary season.

So last time there were folks demanding people vote for their pony or else not vote at all? This is why I missed out purposely on the last primary. GD-P is a wasteland for people that want to get hides.

[Fearless]

154. Yes but not really until after it was clear Hillary would lose

Even then though, a few posters got a time out. I can't recall any major posters being banned. A few sock puppets maybe.

[Rex]

156. Interesting, thank you.

Wish I would have skipped out on this one.

[Fearless]

162. Unfortunately I agree.

Banning one of the most popular DUers will not bode well in the coming weeks.

[NYC Liberal]

189. But advocating against Democrats in the GENERAL has.

That's what this poster was doing.

[Fearless]

192. We are in the primary.

[NYC Liberal]

296. Poster in question stated they were talking about the General,

not the primary.

[Fearless]

446. We are in the primary.

Name one DUer banned for saying that during a primary.

[Lil Missy]

161. Bye. n/t

[Fearless]

164. Umm... bye?

[Egnever]

217. Anyone who thinks many was a democratic poster wasn't paying attention

He has been using the left to attack dems for over a decade now.

[Fearless]

219. The third way is strong in you. Go away.

[Egnever]

222. Says the the person crying over third way many.

[Fearless]

225. Tell me my dear, Stephen Colbert... liberal or conservative?

[Egnever]

226. Entertainer

[Fearless]

230. My dear answer the question.

Also... Borowitz... Serious or satire

The Onion... News or entertainment?

[Egnever]

237. That was the answer

[Fearless]

252. The answer is either "liberal" or "conservative"

It's not that hard.

[Egnever]

253. No the answer is entertainer

and you're right its incredibly easy.

[Fearless]

271. It's the character Stephen Colbert liberal or conservative?

[Adrahil]

289. TOS is pretty clear....

And frankly, if he will not support the party nominee, it doesn't really matter if he calls himself a Democrat.

[Fearless]

493. Again, during a primary this has never been an issue

[LaurenG]

120. Well I don't think its good

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Long time DU'ers with passion are necessary even if they say things that aren't cool sometimes. I hope he gets to come back and I wish everyone would just remember some of the things they've said or done that might have been construed as obnoxious over the years.

Jebus, doesn't anyone remember the Howard Dean wars or the pumas from 2008.

[treestar]

134. He said the one thing that is not cool

with the TOS.

[LaurenG]

148. How many other than Obama supporters said that in 2008 and are still here?

The freaking election is a year away and yet here everyone is cheering that a long time poster is gone. That's not good, that's a tragedy.

[treestar]

152. Never saw that

That was not common enough to be noticed.

That poster gone is no tragedy and it's amazing he lasted so long. He was a right winger playing with us. Never had a good thing to say about any Democrat.

[LaurenG]

169. I think you're mistaken

about Manny. He's a mover and shaker who wants Bernie to win. As far as the 08, be glad you didn't get into any run ins about candidates, it was nasty. I can only say I'm not looking forward to that again.

[treestar]

171. He just never had a positive thing to say about Democrats

or the party. Warren was an exception but like Bernie, it was only out of the need to find someone to use to attack other Democrats as not pure enough. Originally it was FDR, but Warren and then Bernie became better because the argument that it was 70 years ago was too strong.

The constant sarcasm was a turn off. One can support Bernie or whoever without that.

[LaurenG]

176. I never had that kind of issue wih him. I liked Pitt and Goldstein and a few others that would

rock the boat. They just didn't effect me in that way. I do hope he gets to come back.

[emulatorloo]

196. From my observations, that pretty much sums it up.

Didn't really criticize Republicans either.

Pretty much every OP was finely crafted click-bait/flame-bait. In a way was great for DU's bottom line, because the clicks meant DU could charge more money for ad space.

[Mojorabbit]

198. He was one of my favorite posters and no r winger.

I am re evaluating my monthly donation. It is the primaries. Always crazy here. Political junkies hang here and none of them are not going to vote. There should be wide latitude during this time and this was a stupid ban. Most of my favorite posters have left and most of the annoying anti snowden pro third way ones are still here.

[treestar]

201. I say that because other than Warren or Sanders

he had no good thing to say about any Democrat. And he didn't criticize Republicans. It was always his allegedly fellow Democrats he was going after.

[leftstreet]

168. +1

[Cha]

377. He's gone because he broke the rules.. if he hadn't done that he'd still be here. Skinner banned

him.

You don't advocate others not to vote for the Dem nominee. End of story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002

[LaurenG]

381. I don't despute that.

but I won't repeat myself.

[LiberalLovinLug]

122. woo hoo! I saw the OP and came in for the party!

But I find its just a dreary snickering lot crowing about how they pushed a great DUer out of the sand box and kicked over his sand castle because he made them face an uncomfortable truth when they were just trying to have some good ole fun haplessly attempting to discredit the overwhelming online polling in favour of Bernie. And happened to get just enough jurors from their camp in the mix to censor him. Woo Hoo!

If this is really what its all about as linked to upthread by JHB:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002&sub=trans

Well here is the photo he used once again:



Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

Hillary Clinton - yay
Bernie Sanders - nay

Go ahead, alert me too. Make my day.

[Cha]

383. Talk to Skinner. He Banned manny for breaking the rules. Don't advocate others not to vote

for the Dem nominee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002

[JimDandy]

124. That's right, Clinton supporters, feel the coronation... n/t

[BlindTiresias]

137. Messed up thread

Hillary fanatics are real sadists.

[Lazy Daisy]

140. WOW

Wonder how many new bug squishing sig lines will come about with this one?

I didn't go for the bug last time as I didn't know the poster and believed it was truly about that poster and not about Bernie supporters. Now I know better. I've added my sig line now.

[mcar]

142. K&R

[Inkfreak]

157. Childish.

[Marr]

481. +1, yep.

But that's the sort of poster that's coddled around here. Good little toadies.

[SoapBox]

158. Disgusting.

[Lil Missy]

165. OMG, it's about time that troll got the axe. n/t

[SunSeeker]

234. +1

[progree]

167. Yes, Thank you Skinner

[rug]

170. Things like this never happened in the Lincoln Chafee Group.

[MadDAsHell]

183. This is very simple math. DU exists to make its owners (very good) money.

Ask yourself which primary candidate is more likely to prioritize helping existing business owners make more money for themselves.

[MisterP]

186. they can't ban every DUer--technically they can, but we don't have to act like it

[Tikki]

187. Thank you...I am part of DemocraticUnderground.

Tikki

[Bobbie Jo]

188. HUGE K&R!

[Heddi]

190. I can't wait for the Clinton supporters who say the same thing to get the same treatment

i.e.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490

She says it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post41

and here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post28

and here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post60

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post117

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post64

and here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post83

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post97

[Arugula Latte]

220. Good point, Heddi. I strongly dislike double standards.

[haikugal]

223. Thanks for this Heddi...nt

[SusanCalvin]

242. I certainly agree the Dec. 6 post is exactly the same sort of thing,

but for some reason all the above links send me to the exact same post.

[Cha]

352. Oh really? I have never seen any Hillary supporters saying they wouldn't vote for the Dem

nominee and advocate others not to do so.

manny broke the rules.. and got what he deserved.

[SusanCalvin]

370. Well, I can't copy and paste because it was self-deleted,

But my recollection is "I could never support Bernie Sanders." Seems pretty clear to me.

[Cha]

371. But, didn't advocate others not to vote for BS.

[SusanCalvin]

375. I will take your word for that (seriously, not snark). nt

[City Lights]

251. Well isn't that special!?

Thanks for pointing this out, Heddi!

[villager]

256. "Equal" treatment!? Here at the "Underground!?"

Sorta like waiting for "hope and change," eh?

[arthritisR_US]

257. She didn't say the same thing. MG was saying if Bernie didn't get in he

would not vote a democratic nominee and would implore others not to vote D as well. His position is more like if not Bernie then be sure to vote R or other.

The lass you have cited clearly stated "Never voted for a republican in my life and never will." At most, she may sit out the vote on the presidential ticket but it's highly likely she would be still voting for all the down ticket races.

[George II]

283. None of those are even close to what the other departed DUer said, and not ONCE....

....did she say she would NOT vote for the nominee, whoever it is.

The closest she came was to say she wouldn't vote for someone who isn't a Democrat. If you infer in that statement that she said she wouldn't vote for Sanders, then I guess you're admitting that Sanders isn't a Democrat.

And in at least one of those posts she explicitly said she would NOT encourage anyone else to do that.

So, I respectfully say that you're incorrect.

[truebluegreen]

287. Funny how all those posts have been

self-deleted by the author. Even funnier that they were all OK with the author until today.

"Consciousness of guilt" anyone?

[Curmudgeoness]

310. That's funny all right. And telling.

Now, if anyone clicks on the links, and finds that they are all deleted, they will know that there was definitely something to hide.

[Heddi]

320. Ah, nothing is truly EVER deleted from the internet....

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AgFLlxmHG7XsJ%3Awww.democraticunderground.com%2F1251878490+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[truebluegreen]

321. Heh. (slow clap)

[LostOne4Ever]

322. +infinity! nt

[arcane1]

336. Copy/pasting the full text:

Bernie supporters are a big reason I will never support Bernie

I'm about as loyal a Democrat as a person can get. I have voted in every election for 38 years, and always straight Dem. Never voted for a republican in my life and never will. I understand politics and the importance of holding the majority, and the office of the Presidency.

But internet wide I have seen Bernie supporters smear Dems like Obama, Hillary, DWS, Pelosi, Reid, and a host of others 24/7. Bernie himself spent years dissing the Democratic party, so maybe that was the cue to Bernie supporters). And now we have seen his supporters attack even those that endorse or otherwise support Hillary, from John Conyers to unions, to the AA community, and on and on.

That is abhorrent to me. It turns my stomach. Six months ago I probably could have gotten on board with Bernie were he the nominee. But at this point I have just made the decision that I cannot do anything to aide and abet this behavior. I imagine it is similar to the reason some voters have abandoned the republican party as a result of the teabaggers.

I just won't be any part of sending the message that this is okay or effective. Call it a principled stand if you will. And make no mistake, there are plenty of loyal Dems that feel the same way. That is why you see more early endorsements for Hillary than in most previous elections. Hell, even my 23 year old son, who would be happy with any Dem has voiced disgust with what he sees on social media from Bernie supporters.

Your tactics are backfiring, IMO. If you really want Bernie to have a chance you should probably focus on building him up rather than tearing other Dems down.

(for the alert police - this is not specific to DU - it is about the general tone of Bernie supporters across the internet and social media).

[SusanCalvin]

380. Well, the general tone of some (not all) Bernie supporters

is the reason I changed my avatar. I understand the emotion, although I'm still a Bernie supporter.

[arcane1]

334. Cowards do tend to hide from unwanted attention

[JimDandy]

293. Do the same search for

the thread poster. The OP, a Clinton supporter, has posted at least several of them that I've seen (with a reversal on the names of course) and may not have thought to delete them yet. Was astounded to see this grave-dancing thread because of that same "staring into the abyss" behavior. Too time consuming for non-star members like me to do such a search or I would.

[NYC Liberal]

298. As a Hillary supporter I am all for enforcing the TOS for ANYONE

regardless of whether they support Hillary or Sanders.

[treestar]

315. As long as Hillary is so

Far ahead in the polls it is not very disruptive. That scenario is unlikely to occur.

[LaurenG]

345. all self deleted. nt

[opiate69]

364. Check out Skinner's response to this subject....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=9267

Frankly, horseshit.

[catnhatnh]

417. What a coincidence!!!

All 8 of those self deleted this morning...

[merrily]

518. Hmmm.

[retrowire]

526. LMAO she actually went back and self deleted everything!

Mind blown.

[retrowire]

193. Gravedancing is the most deplorable.

And just like all of you that have flies being swatted in your siglines, you truly show your maturity levels.

Each and everyone of you should be ashamed.

[MohRokTah]

195. I see no reason for being ashamed.

Quite frankly, I'm pretty damned proud of my support for the Democratic Party.

[retrowire]

197. No honor. nt

[Rex]

205. Why? It is a game to them like Red vs Blue team.

I thought it was all sincerity, until I went and looked and read GD-P for a spell. Changed my mind completely. This is just a game to two groups here that threw decency out the window a long time ago.

[upaloopa]

268. I'll bet you add more flies to yours right?

More flies to swat

[retrowire]

275. I never questioned your maturity level, there's no need to confirm it. nt

[Squinch]

280. .

[Cha]

463. manny broke the rules... advocating for others not to vote for the Dem Nom .. I care too much

about the Planet to want that kind of shite around here.

Skinner does ROCK for enforcing his own rules.

If manny didn't think he was so special that he didn't need to go by the rules.. he'd still be here.

[retrowire]

478. so?

apparently you all think you're so special that you can gloat about it.

[Cha]

479. So Skinner ROCKS!

[msanthrope]

194. Feels like Christmas morning.....nt

[Egnever]

221. After a decade of his manipulation it is certainly a wonder to behold.

There is definitely something magical about it.

[Chan790]

207. Skinner should give more thought to the reality that he doesn't want another Bush president...

and act accordingly.

A primary vote for Hillary is a GE vote for the GOP. She wins the nomination, the GE is going to be a bloodbath. Since supporting your candidate is the best way to insure a Republican President and his forum is so large that it has a measurable impact of elections and Democratic politics, he should start tombstoning Clinton supporters with great urgency. Only he can save America from Clinton-defeat now.

The continued support of Hillary is a greater threat to Democrats holding the White House than Manny as the canary in the coalmine vocalizing a reality that is going to cost us the Presidency. Enough Democratic and independent voters despise your candidate enough that they will elect anybody to keep her out of the Presidency. Even if they're only 8% of Democrats on top of the Democrats who typically cross the aisle, it's enough to move the election from Obama's most-recent EC map to Reagan 1984.

Voting for Clinton in the primary is the most dangerously-insipidly-awful thing any Democrat could do. We're going to have enough aisle-crossers that the GOP nominee, no matter how idiotic they may be, will end up President.

Even this guy:


or this guy:


Don't elect Donald Trump president, shank Hillary's candidacy today!

(This message brought to you by sane Democratic primary voters everywhere against handing the White House to Trump.)

[redstateblues]

258. Hillary will beat Trump

I know it hurts to think Bernie will not win the primary. Once the R's went after Bernie in the GE he would lose in a landslide. His baggage is fatal- Honeymoon in Moscow would be just the beginning. America is just not going to elect a Socialist President in 2016

[senseandsensibility]

212. Not necessary.

[AngryOldDem]

218. This is just bullshit.

And yes, I understand -- his board, his rules. But I can determine how and where to spend my free time, and it ain't gonna be here.

[immoderate]

227. I think an 'underground' site should promote democracy over Democrats.

--imm

[MohRokTah]

231. COOL idea!

Get a server hosted, buy the software, and open up DemocracyUnderground.com.

You might have fun doing it, too!

[immoderate]

254. So Democratic is a brand name, like Trump?

--imm

[MohRokTah]

262. Democratic, as in the party.

You might want to read the TOS. It's very explicit in the mission of this site and that it is to support Democratic nominees.

[immoderate]

266. ... as opposed to democracy. I get it.

--imm

[RobinA]

438. Now

you're catching on. This has been quite an eye opener. Not really what I remember signing up for lo these many years ago.

[SunSeeker]

245. It is Democratic Underground.

You have the whole rest of the internet to bash Dems. This site is for Democrats who support Democrats.

[redstateblues]

260. How about SU- Socialist Underground?

[JimDandy]

306. How about the owners constructing *Progressive Underground*

for the 89% of DU who are Sanders supporters.

[SunSeeker]

229. K & R

[CajunBlazer]

244. Actually three post that were hidden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002&sub=trans

Of course, because they were hidden we can't tell what was said to get the poster wacked.

[progree]

261. I'm pretty sure it was this one from Friday evening:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251916239

It never got juried and hidden ... but somehow it got brought to the attention of the Admins. I don't know how that works...

[sharp_stick]

299. A lot of members in that

thread are pretty lucky that the admins give a lot of latitude on banning.

There's a lot of me toos following the OP.

[Chan790]

263. I just realized, in the most platonic way imaginable...

that I love you for this post.

[upaloopa]

264. not going to hit the alert button

But post after post bashing Hillary with your made up bull shit is not discussion.

[easttexaslefty]

369. This

[Cha]

376. manny broke the rules.. Skinner Banned him for advocating others not to vote for the Dem

Nominee.

Take it to Skinner.

[edbermac]

238. Bah humbug to Skinner.

And the grave dancers.

[stonecutter357]

239. K&R!

[Dawson Leery]

248. Manny was the left wing equivalent of a Trump supporter.

Give him his demands or else.
He will not be missed.

You cannot work against the eventual Democratic nominee if you are a member of this board.

[Blue_In_AK]

265. I can't be happy about this.

Manny amused me.

[Hekate]

270. ZOWIE! Before my morning coffee!!!!111!!

[840high]

278. Grave dancing - how low can you get?

[Hekate]

346. What, did the Rockin' Skinner die? All the OP says is Skinner Rocks.

[sagat]

281. Better late than never.

[BumRushDaShow]

285. Holy shit

Went to see Star Wars today and come back to see this thread.





Thank you Skinner.

[Gothmog]

288. K&R

[EvolveOrConvolve]

291. It says a lot about a person

That they'd celebrate the misfortune of another. And none of what it says is positive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

292. Best! Christmas! Ever!!!! You Better Believe It!

[Prism]

300. He played with fire

I saw where that was going as soon as I read it. I'm pretty done with Hillary and her DOMA apologizing nonsense. Once she's nominated, I imagine I'll hang in GD and post about just about anything else.

Are the admins actually concerned about trolls? No. People can blatantly PM others telling them they're just here to troll, and the admins do nothing. It is what it is. I will not envy them once there's a nominee. This will be a fun place.

I liked Manny a great deal, and he cared a lot about actual liberal issues. The guy wasn't a partisan. We need more of those, not less. But, this is the playground of partisans - it's there in the TOS - and so it goes.

On a positive note, going to see Star Wars now. Much woo!

[redstateblues]

303. Enough is enough!

Hopefully this will return some civility to this place.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

304. Ugh.

[DCBob]

316. About time that dude got canned

Sick of his anti-Democrat rants.

Cheers!

[Owl]

319. Childish. Unrec.

[Hissyspit]

440. If there was still an unrec button, this post would never have gotten to the Greatest Page.

[Flying Squirrel]

460. It still didn't hit the GP for me..

The OP is ignored, only reason I saw it was that someone linked to it in the Bernie group.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

324. I was very excited to see this! nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

326. SPLAT.

Buh-bye.

[PatrickforO]

327. OK, I grudgingly concede that if Clinton gets the nomination I will hold

my nose and vote for her simply because the GOP people are so twisted and evil.

However, I really WILL be holding my nose, because this data thing is a snakelike move to kill the campaign of the one guy we have who will actually make thing better for us, not, as Clinton will, SAY she will and then not.

But the primaries haven't happened yet and Wasserman Schultz likely slithered out of her lair a bit too early in the process. Sure, it's a ratfuck to the max. You bet.

But us Bernie people are going to continue to speak truth to power and continue supporting our candidate because he's the ONE guy whose policies can actually make our lives measurably better. So thanks Debbie.

And you know, if you ban me from posting, oh well. I like this place, but there's others...

[DonCoquixote]

328. ahm, the fly swatters, the smilies

all too hide the fact that the only reason a certain candidate is dominant is because we have been told no one else can be. Put even a little pressure on her to not write a blank check for mid east war or wall street, and we are considered traitors. Never mind that we know she will betray us the Wednesday after election Tuesday, but we are supposed to be enthused because one master only tries to be 10 percent less brutal than the other.

All I can say is this. When Hillary goes boldly where no democrat has gone before to the right of Ronnie Ray gun and Maggie Thatcher, my solace will be that I can sit back and wonder which set of people will be thrown under the bus. Hillary may demand loyalty, but she rarely gives it. And if she does start world war three because "assad must go" or finally giver her friends that war with Iran, I know exactly who to point to when the world finally asks us to pay the bills.

Just do not go blaming us again if you lose. If you did not want to lose, you would not have a three time loser like Debbie calling the shots.

[haikugal]

408. Woo-hoo! Go for it! Thanks for that!

Well done...

[Marr]

485. Well said. /nt

[saturnsring]

329. WHAT about the people who agreed with him. the 1st 2 replies said the same thing

[PasadenaTrudy]

340. I think I miss the door buzzard :( n/t

[blackspade]

354. Ah, more grave dancing from camp weathervane.

Pathetic.

[Skittles]

367. agreed

[Purveyor]

386. More like 'poisoning the well' so let them continue. The

result will be theirs.

[blackspade]

437. Indeed

[Tarc]

406. The banned user in question dug his own grave

by advocating that people write-in his preferred candidate if said candidate did not win the primary.

That kind of behavior gets Skinner to stand up, say "enough", and show the lout to the door.

We're here for a party, not a cult of personality.

[Purveyor]

449. So that justifies the grave dancing? Steels animosity IMO. Nt

[DFW]

362. Well......

I didn't agree with him a lot about the way he went about expressing things, but I don't find anything to celebrate here.

[baldguy]

365. 'bout fucking time.

[Cha]

389. manny broke the rules advocating for others not to vote for the Dem nominee. This is our Planet

I don't want any damn repubs in the White House.

If he didn't think he was so special that rules weren't for him.. he'd still be here.

So yeah, I'm glad he's gone.

Thank you, Skinner!

Moh!

[R B Garr]

392. Thanks to Skinner!

A very wise move!

[LadyHawkAZ]

396. I think everyone saw this one coming a long time ago

Which is about when the ban should have happened. Obvious troll was very obvious.

[JI7]

467. pretty much this

fucking obvious. and was never a sanders or warren supporter. a fucking shit stirring attention seeking .........................

[LadyHawkAZ]

517. Zactly

He never met a Democrat he didn't hate. Unless one was useful for causing division, then he just looooved the shit out of them.

And people bought into it. Sad.

[joshcryer]

520. I've been enjoying DU lately, too.

Almost all the faux Sanders supporters have migrated elsewhere. I hope the trend continues.

[joshcryer]

401. Wow, this is crazy.

I'm gobsmacked!

[Number23]

403. Praise be to Skinner. Thank you. Truly.

[Rex]

411. Well have a great holiday. Blue leader takes a hit and is down.

Guess you got what ya wanted, odd that you would want to get a timeout...but this is christmas so have a good one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313736

[Rex]

413. Looks like Gold leader took a bad one...heavy blaster to the wing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=105176

[Owl]

415. Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

419. For someone who only came here a year ago, you seem to be quite comfortable. Hmmm.... nt

[TSIAS]

427. This thread blows

Combines a myriad of personality traits I hate -- grave-dancing, brown-nosing, and excessive use of emoticons.

[betsuni]

431. Thank you Skinner! *pirouettes on grave*

[Reter]

433. This is supposed to be an anti-establishment site

So with all due respect, why is its leader voting for the establishment candidate?

[RobinA]

444. This Thread

and its constant references to following rules says all that needs to be said about how antiestablishment this site is.

[MADem]

462. Anti-establishment? In what way?

This is a private site with a TOS.

You've been here long enough that you surely must remember the pages and pages of cumbersome DU rules--the TOS is much more streamlined, and much simpler.

I tend to hew to those old rules simply because I know that some people have sensitivities about this topic or that, or use of particular language -- but the TOS here is a reasonable one for a site that has as a goal the election of MORE DEMOCRATS, and fewer Republicans, to public office.

[Hekate]

453. >sigh< No, it is not. Will you PLEASE read the TOS?

[JEB]

435. Manny was one of the funniest and most thought provoking

voices on DU. We are all diminished by his absence.

[TSIAS]

441. Oh, the irony

Starting a grave dancing thread and not even a day later you are sleeping with the fishes (at least for a little while).

[Hissyspit]

442. So you support Third Way?

There was a time people who espoused Third Way here we're mocked off the site.

[Bonobo]

443. What a scummy post. nt

[Skittles]

454. you people SUCK

[cui bono]

457. You should be banned as well

for stating you would not vote for the Democratic Party nominee if it is Bernie.

But then you're a Hillary supporter so...

.

[KingCharlemagne]

475. +Infinity! - nt

[Orrex]

476. This has been explicitly addressed

See the ATA post HERE.

We have not banned any long-term members this election cycle for simply stating an intent to personally not support the Democratic nominee in the 2016 general election.

I have seen many of Sanders' supporters explicitly declare that they will not vote for Clinton, yet none of these have been PPR'ed for it.

In the case of both L0oniX and MannyGoldstein, they engaged in advocacy. L0oniX posted an online petition so other people could pledge to withhold their support from the eventual nominee if their favored candidate did not win. And MannyGoldstein very clearly advocated that other DU members withhold their support from the nominee if their favored candidate did not win.

That is, neither of those two was PPR'ed for stating that they won't vote for Clinton, but rather for encouraging others to withhold their votes as well. That's advocacy of a sort explicitly not permitted by DU.

If you can find examples of Clinton supporters urging others not to vote for Sanders if he miraculously lands on the ballot, then please do so, because IMO they should be PPR'ed as well, and for the same reason.

[cui bono]

497. That is incorrect regarding L0onix and side note... NYC_SKP was banned for a false reason as well.

This was laid out very well in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=9277

I never saw the Manny post that did him in. I read it got deleted (by admins?). If you have a link I'd like to see it.

.

[Orrex]

499. Perhaps we read different posts

I read the post by LOonix, and I recall it to have been as described--a call to go on record as refusing to vote for Clinton in Nov 2016. That's kind of odd, considering how Sanders' supporters generally react to perceived "loyalty oaths" here on DU.

I also read Manny's post, and it was another exhortation to reject the Democratic nominee. Yes, it was sort of vague, in that sneaky quasi-satire style that made him so beloved by his fans, but the intent was clear enough to the Admins.

And I remember NYC_SKP's post as a rather unambiguous in unapologetic use of the word. Not a lot of wiggle room there. I've read multiple posts by his advocates claiming that he didn't "really" use the term, but they're unconvincing. NYC_SKP's meaning was clear and undeniable, and it's cowardly to pretend that he didn't "really" use or mean the term. In fact, I reread it just now, and it's every bit as clear as when he posted it.



If you feel that the PPRs (or their explanations) are bogus, then you should raise your objections in ATA.

[cui bono]

500. The Loonix post was not a call to action. It was the posting of an article with a link to it.

The article may have had a link to the petition, but LOonix didn't tell people to go sign a petition. S/he just posted the article and link.

I have raised objections to the one-sided banning. Deaf ears on an admin that favors Hillary though. Given a link to what I linked you to, which clearly shows those two bans I mentioned were not justified.

I just saw a post yesterday where someone called Sanders an "asshole" and that stood and the poster is not banned. It's definitely not a two way street here.

.

[Orrex]

501. I don't believe that the TOS forbids calling a primary candidate an asshole

And, had I been on that jury, I would have voted to "Leave It" whether it was directed at Sanders or Clinton. However, if Sanders makes it onto the ballot and someone then calls him an asshole, I would vote to Hide.

But if you feel strongly about it, alert the Admins.

I don't know what to tell you about NYC_SKP except that we're simply going to see it differently. I was reading that thread in real time when he sealed his PPR, and I've read multiple "explanations" of it post hoc, including the one to which you linked. My impression of his post is unchanged. NYC_SKP used a joke that has had a clear meaning for decades. There is simply no way that he could have posted it without realizing what he was posting, and he paid the price. He had a history, in fact, of holding people accountable for their posts, so it's fitting that he should be held to the same standard.

I have raised objections to the one-sided banning. Deaf ears on an admin that favors Hillary though. Given a link to what I linked you to, which clearly shows those two bans I mentioned were not justified.

Perhaps you can cite the examples of Clinton's supporters calling for DUers to pledge not to vote for Sanders in Nov 2016, and then we can discuss why those members haven't been PPR'ed.

[cui bono]

506. What makes "asshole" a lesser offense than not even actually using the "c" word?

Whether you like NYC_SKP or not - and I don't have an opinion one way or the other since s/he didn't stick out to me much, I think I recall disliking a couple of posts at one time - s/he did not use the c word and the play on words was not directly at Hillary but at an action.

Well, someone said that Bernie is not a Democrat and they would never vote for him ever if he wins the Dem nom.

Someone else said same. Apparently writing an OP about it - it was self-deleted yesterday after it was linked to as an example by someone - isn't enough to get a ban. Perhaps they didn't do the call to action that is what is stated as a reason, but neither did L0onix.

.

[Orrex]

511. I encourage you to post in HoF to ask why "asshole" is the lesser term

I defer to whatever answer you receive there.

As for the rest, unless you can cite actual posts (other than "this one person, and then this other person&quot then I'm afraid I can't accept your claim that Clinton supporters are generally getting a pass.

And I simply disagree with your interpretation of NYC_SKP's post. Its intent and its meaming are clear, and he was rightly PPRed for it.

[Marr]

483. +1, agreed.

[Electric Monk]

509. They have been, twice, by my count. First as Pretzel_Warrior, then as functioning_cog. nt

[akbacchus_BC]

461. Just curious? How do DUers who do not subscribe to DU get to

grave dance on another DU? Manny was a paid up member and I cannot believe how you all eat your own. Imagine, a long time DUer gone and some folks are happy! Is this what the internet is for, anonymous, so we do not care if our words on here hurt anyone?

It is fecking appalling how some of these folks on DU turn on each other, shameful! There is no solidarity on here unless you manage to know a few people virtually who have your back!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

525. Star membership buys you more jury blocks and the right to post in ATA.

You also get to post polls and a couple of other perqs. Many people have been members for years and don't have a * after their name.

As for eating our own -- it's primary season. That's what we do. Right now, we're a divided group. Let's see where we are in 6 months.

My guess is that -- after a time, and possibly under new handles, Manny, L00nix, and NYCSkip will all be back after some time has passed and an apology is proffered. DU has traditionally been a land of second chances.. and in some cases third chances.

[Marr]

482. This post reminds me of someone.

The little guy on the left here.

[opiate69]

487. !!

[Ichingcarpenter]

489. Is He on a time out like the OP author is now?

.................yes........... timeout

[Eleanors38]

496. Voting for my dead cat in Texas ain't splitting a thing.

[stevil]

502. Thank you Skinner

[Eleanors38]

504. You're welcome.

[Electric Monk]

507. It must really chap your ass that the Adios, Manny thread has 4x as many recs as your gravedancing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128086208

edited to add: Don't worry, I won't be expecting a reply from you anytime soon http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313736&sub=trans

[Crunchy Frog]

510. Sorry to see him go.

I do understand that he violated TOS, but I really did enjoy him as a poster.

[ljm2002]

515. You, however, do not. n/t

[CBGLuthier]

519. Over 500 posts on a gravedancing thread for a long time member. This is not the DU I remember

nor the DU I want.

Enjoy your victory. I hope it is the last you have and you lose the one that matters most.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

524. What DU are you talking about? Do you remember the Lounge Wars and MidloDemocrat

Kali, S N O W B A L L, and all that nastiness. DU has always had a petty, vindictive, nasty streak -- and we love our drama here.

There are like 20 threads singing Manny's praises. Go join those folks, and let those who think he is/was an idiot have their own thread.

[TSIAS]

523. K&R

Thanks Skinner for putting some of this site's most obvious trolls on a much deserved 90 day vacation.