Jerome Armstrong has graciously offered to refund the 100 dollars I sent to him after I having been so unceremoniously banned… for a yet unspecified reason.
I take Jerome’s offer and ask him to send it to either one or divide the 100 dollars between both:
As per Moiv’s incredible diary: The Katrina Aid That Dare Not Speak Its Name
How many young women did we all see on our TV screens, bedding down on the floor at the Astrodome in Houston or Reunion Arena in Dallas with their babies and toddlers, surrounded by crumpled plastic bags that held all they had left in the world? There seemed to be thousands of them, and then more thousands. As in any population of young women, many of them were pregnant. And for a great number of those young women–the ones for whom unexpected and unwanted pregnancies represented a second disaster–the devastation that their lives had become was worsened by the anxiety of wondering how they could find the help they needed to have a desperately desired abortion.
Fortunately, they didn’t have to depend on FEMA. Low-income women who are residents of Texas and who cannot afford the cost an abortion are able to rely on two sources of help–the Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access Fund–volunteer nonprofit organizations that immediately expanded their previous scope to offer all possible assistance to displaced women who were relocated to Texas in the aftermath of Katrina. Lilith and TEA typically provide somewhere from $50-100 in assistance, and as providers, we generally find a way to make up the rest.
I also enocurage any one else to give to this fund… you will be helping a lot more than giving to some Republican Democrats who want to take push women back to the stone age.
Parker, all the points of view have been expressed.
And you’ve been generously allowed a forum by BooMan — which he did not have to do — in which to express your views.
If you wish to post something like this, I hope you’ll do it elsewhere.
This is an attack on another blog and blogger. If you wish to express that, do it directly to that person. Not here anymore. You’ve had 162 comments in your diary from yesterday … that’s enough.
I don’t see how saying that there was a gracious offer to refund money is “an attack” — could the main point here possibly be to donate money to these orgainizations in Texas? It seems that that is what most of the diary is about.
could the main point here possibly be to donate money to these orgainizations in Texas? It seems that that is what most of the diary is about.
Perhaps if the title didn’t include Jerome Armstrong’s name, that would actually fly.
Sorry, but I agree with Susan here. There’s already a diary about this dispute on the reco list and Parker could simply e-mail Jerome instead of continuing this in public. We don’t need another round of wars here at BT.
beholder — Jerome’s name in the title could just as easily be seen as a way to get his attention — he says he will refund the $$, and Parker is saying “here you go, send it here!”
Everything is about perception.
but she clearly has his email address as it is listed in the diary. If all she wanted was to tell him where to send the money a private email seems like the way to go.
If she wanted to focus on the charities themselves, a diary is a good way to go… but then that leaves… why his name in the title?
to step outside of their viewpoint and/or their perceptions — that is getting harder and harder to do in any case — just wondering if it might not be more fair to everyone to FULLY specify what “being a prick” is, so that we don’t have these arguments every damned week.
The title that Parker changed it to is certainly NOW inflamatory, but that’s going to happen when people come in and basically tell you to SYFPH on a diary like this.
It has been suggested in other comments that Parker should have just responded in the original diary. If that logic holds, then it would be just as acceptable to say that the place for the STFU comments would have been on Parker’s original diary, (though that would fly int he face of “you got 167 comments, that’s enough…”) because it seems that what was expressed THERE is what is bothering susan (and others), if talk of other sites and their proprietors and/or BMT posters’ experiences thereon is off limits, just put it in the FAQ and be done with it.
THIS diary, in and of itself being construed as an attack is incomprehensible to me.
I see what you mean although I had the exact opposite perspective 🙂
my take was that no one deleted parker’s banning diary, no one troll rated her, no one banned her, people just disagreed with her and her tone/ tactics. but a discussion was taking place.
so then this diary comes along and it seems as if parker is trying to keep it going by using jerome’s name in the title when all the diary is about is sending money to charities in essence… the refund just gave her the means to do so… at least that’s the way the diary read to me.
I just hate flame wars. I think we can discuss the issues and see how they tie into individuals vs. starting out with the individual and then tying in the organization… the NDN/ DLC issue is important and should be discussed, but it seemed to me that what some of the naysayers commenters in her banning diary were just asking for proof of the allegations vs. calling parker a liar.
anyway, now I’m just rambling, but yes, I can see your perspective too 🙂
And maybe we do need to define what “prick” means a bit better.
And I see what you mean, though (surprise, surprise) I have the opposite perspective!
😉
I’m not a huge fan of flmae wars either (and I’m not sure that what we do here really compares to the “your mother is a hamster and smells of elderberries” types of shit that gets tossed about elsewhere online), but I have learned a lot about what people REALLY think from them, and for that alone, I think that keeping “lids” on “things that will enflame people’s passions” is counterproductive in some cases….but, this is not my place and I don’t make the rules, I guess I would just like to be clear on what they are (and, yes, catnip, I did read your post).
Thanks for the “back and forth”, spider!
today, and so I don’t think now is the right time for me set down ‘prick’ policy. I believe you owe Alohaleezy an apology for lashing out at her for no reason. I don’t understand how you could possibly think it is okay to tell another member to never respond to you, and it is all the worse for the fact that she didn’t respond to you.
I’m not singling you out here either. Alohaleezy has crossed some lines too, in her exchanges with you. I suspect she will voluntarily avoid responding to your posts, but she has the right to do so, as you have the right to respond to anyone else’s posts.
As for this diary, it violates the rules because it is not cross-posted at MyDD. The fact that she can’t crosspost at MyDD, is tough luck.
I think every person who has been banned from this site has been banned from another site before. Usually they have been banned by more than one site. Some people cannot get along with others. This site is not going to become a safe haven for serial trolls (that get serially banned from community sites) so they can come here and create new turmoil all over again.
Every once in a while someone will come here who has been unjustly banned. They will be a victim of the broader policy that is aimed at keeping this site’s culture respectful.
In other words, members can say whatever they want, but members that have been banned from a site (any site) can’t use this as a forum to bring their baggage here.
but no person who comes into my house and happily indulges herself in my hospitality and generousity and then in a PUBLIC FORUM, implies that I somehow twisted her arm (“I didn’t ask you for any of that, you INSISTED”, she wrote,a s if it was such an imposition on HER) can kiss my fucking ass. She will NOT get an apology from me.
And you have said a number of times, when responding directly to me that you are not singling me out. I call bullshit on that. I think that you do an admirable job trying to stay neutral in most disputes, but you DO take sides and it is extremely irritating, especially in this case.
And I realize that she did not post her response directly under mine — as I point out in the very next comment.
Just for the record, I have never been banned from ANYwhere, and there are plently of people who post who bring all kinds of baggage whether they have been banned or not — just depends on what you do or do not want posted here. Foul mood or not, I think it would be a good idea to tighten up the policy, then individual posters will have less opportunity to get self-rightous about what they think it means.
to respond to this when I am in a better mood. It’s not good to engage in this stuff when my temper is high.
… if someone were banned from say, FreeRepublic, and came in here with their tale of woe, would that rule still apply? Or is it only sites with which this one is affiliated that the post on the site in question rule applies to? For that matter is it appropriate to post on dramatic occurrences on sites like FreeRepublic to which no one was or is a member? Also, does that rule apply only to community occurrences on those sites, or does it also apply to things written on them. Because if that’s the case, this gets into an extremely grey area. We discuss and criticize published material all the time, and a blogger is technically published. Here’s my point. If I criticize something Kos wrote, do I need to post that crit there. Likewise, if I criticize something Chris Hitchins wrote, do I need to contact him directly with my critique?
you are making things overly complicated.
Freepers will be banned from this site for different reasons. Freepers act like freepers. Read the FAQ for the rules on Republicans and others who want to post here.
The rule here is that if you are going to post a diary (not a comment) that is a personal attack (not an attack on ideas) of another blogger (and yes this would only apply to bloggers that allow diaries, otherwise, how could you cross-post?), then you have to cross-post it. And if you can’t cross-post it, then don’t write it here.
The presumption that bannees are trollish is justified by experience, and the rule is made to address that specific problem. If some people lose the right to write personal attack diaries, so be it. I really don’t like those kind of diaries anyway.
The presumption that bannees are trollish is justified by experience
Since you are close to Chris Bowers… ask them what was so “trollish” about questioning why a diary was elevated when another had more recommends?
What is the definition of a personal attack? Saying someone’s name?
As I pointing out with Chamonix… she is ranting and raving about me on other boards… but comes here and pretends to be a sweet as pie…what there?
An explanation on recommended diaries:
some people think that I have any influence on what gets on the list. I don’t. I have one vote, just like everyone else. The same is true at MyDD, dKos, and I assume MLW.
Each recommend has an equal value, but that value decays. So more recent recommends are worth more than older ones. That is how a diary can have fewer recommends and be higher on the list. Jerome and I have no power to alter or fudge the recommend list, other than deleting a diary completely.
As for why you were banned, I am not going to pretend to know the reason. And I am not going to spend any time to figure out why. I have better things to do.
It’s understandable that you don’t want your site to host this little flame-war between the parker and jerome. Their argument does nothing to further the goals of this site. *shrug* Simply saying “stop” to the both of ’em (and their respective adherents) ought to be enough to end it. I haven’t recommended either diary, BTW.
That said, I don’t think parker deserves to be called a “serial troll”. This is a personal dispute between the two of them, and is not an organized attempt to destroy your site through social manipulation or crap-flooding. Not that providing a forum for these outbursts does your site any good…
anyway, JMO. –M
That said, I don’t think parker deserves to be called a “serial troll”.
He didn’t say Parker was a serial troll. He said this:
So, unless Parker fits that description, she is not a serial troll.
OK. So there’s the implication that parker (who was banned) is a serial troll. Or might be. Whatever.
When I think of professional internet trolls, I think of groups like GNAA, who derive from old time USENET trolling groups going back 20 years or more. These guys are organized and really do target specific sites and users for harassment. They’ll write account creation and comment posting scripts, search out private information on users to post, and engage in various illegal activities as part of their harrassment campaigns.
Parker is not doing that sort of stuff, she’s just making a public stink. Which is not to say that the public stink is good for the site. *shrug*
Anyway, we probably agree. At least mostly. And I’m not trying to call booman out or anything. I just wanted to make a minor point. –M
There’s no “implication”. He was talking about generalities.
I’ve used usenet for years as well. Trolls on blogs are a different beast in some ways, but let’s not get into that discussion. I’m tired. I’m cranky. No indictments today (which is where I want to focus – on what’s actually going on in real news), so I’m going for a nap.
Amen Susan….amen!
The offer was made on another diary. I think that Parker’s suggestion of sending that money elsewhere could have been addressed on that diary instead of writing another diary to do so.
I posted my response to Susan — I purposefully did NOT post a response to you — you want me off your back, remember? So, take your congratulatory self-righteous bullshit elsewhere — there is plenty of space to respond where you do NOT have to engage me at all. You are unable to afford me ANY other courtesy, so PLEASE, just do that. Thank you.
I see that you didn’t post a response to me. My mistake.
I’m not BooMan — but I’ll go out on a limb here. I suggest this end right now. We all know the one rule: “Don’t be a prick.”
Parker has had a chance to vent. It’s done. No more. If Parker has more to say, Parker should do so directly to the sources of her distress.
Why? We don’t do public attacks on others in the blogosphere, and especially towards each other, here.
I would like to ask Parker to remove this diary. Its purpose has already been addressed in the other diary. This can’t go on and on.
It drags us all down to have such rancor. We have enough distressing things going on in the world without attacking each other.
Just out of curiosity, where is Parker supposed to address this, given the banning? I mean email is an option, but let’s face it, the likelihood of getting a response is not good. The fact that there is still no clarification of the reason for said banning would seem to attest to that. Besides, I’m with Brinnaine. I think this diary is about more than the current conflict, and I recommended it on those merits.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but there is a much bigger war brewing, and I don’t think it will be possible for this site to steer clear of it, without serious abridgements of free speech. The issues raised regarding funding and the Hackett/Brown campaigns are serious, and they’re not going to go away. That questions about this have resulted in abusive treatment and bannings on two sites, rather than an attempt to respond to those concerns, is a harbinger of things to come, imho. As we all know, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.
Anyway, I think we’re all a little testy waiting for the indictments to come down, and I hope we can keep a reasonable tone, despite our disagreements.
Jerome told Parker in the other diary that he would refund the money. Therefore, it seems they can work out the details privately. If not, Parker can just donate the money to the causes listed. Isn’t that reasonable?
I can’t speak to the “bigger war”.
The title alone is inflammatory. it is meant to aggravate and distress its objects.
Surely there may be a larger, important debate here. And that should be pursued. But not with inflammatory rhetoric and not with personal attacks. We do not do personal attacks here.
I thought it was pretty restrained, especially for Parker. Just one woman’s opinion.
Especially since it makes a very concise, polite comment about the issue at hand. Specifically, supposedly “Democratic” bloggers have no allegiance to Democratic issues. This is not the material for an e-mail, this is a very polite public statement about Jerome and kos’ hypocrisy and inconsistency. Rather than refund her contribution, Parker’s asking that it be submitted to a couple of charities of her choice. How is that insulting OR being a prick? Exactly? Simply including a name in the title doesn’t qualify.
I don’t see how Parker’s violating any rules at all here. Unless this site’s starting to move into “Don’t cross the front pagers” territory. In which case, I want that added to the rules list right now, so I and everyone else that posts here regularly know it’s time for us to leave.
Unless this site’s starting to move into “Don’t cross the front pagers” territory. In which case, I want that added to the rules list right now, so I and everyone else that posts here regularly know it’s time for us to leave.
I second that motion.
guys, I think imho that you are reading too much into this. how is this “crossing the frontpagers”? susan and catnip (and myself and ukkibu) simply don’t see the need to use Jerome’s name in the title when there is a battle already raging in her other diary about being banned. It’s just inflaming the situation at this point. It’s a great thing she is donating the money to those causes and highlighting moiv’s diary again… but surely that can get across without stirring up passions again by using Jerome’s name.
I just think catnip and susan are trying to prevent a flame war from starting and encourage discussion on the issues… the exact things we hate about the orange place.
just my opinion and please don’t you dare even think about hittin’ the road.
and I’m obviously no front-pager here, just another happy customer of this wonderful blog and its many viewpoints.
Parker, thank you for changing the title of your blog. I donated $50 to the Lilith Fund today thanks to your prompting.
I don’t see how Parker’s violating any rules at all here. Unless this site’s starting to move into “Don’t cross the front pagers” territory. In which case, I want that added to the rules list right now, so I and everyone else that posts here regularly know it’s time for us to leave.
As a front pager here I don’t even understand what that means? What territory?
Parker posted nothing that violated the rules. She still got attacked by a bunch of people because a couple front pagers took offence at her criticizing a fellow blogger.
Since when is spiderleaf a front pager?
Look – this is not dkos where some of the front pagers are removed from the rest of the community by their self-appointed special status. We are all part of the community and I think we (the front pagers) all act accordingly.
You interpret violating the rules differently than I do.
If, for example, I lent Armando $20 for a pizza last month and then got pissed off at him, would it be appropriate for me to post a diary here about it? I sure don’t think so. That may not be a direct violation of “the rules” but it simply is not appropriate.
And that is my personal opinion – not the opinion of some fake cabal of front pagers here at BT. If the day ever comes that there is such a cabal, I’m outta here.
I wasn’t referring to spiderleaf. I was referring to the front pagers who posted that Parker was violating the rules and needed to change the diary when, in fact, she was not violating the rules.
Yunno, this kinda pales in comparison to Kos chucking a spear into the heart of the Kaine online Campaign…on his front page not is a little diary.
agreed that this topic won’t, nor should, go away as we define what we believe in and stand for individually as sites/ communities and as the larger lefty blogosphere.
But this diary doesn’t further that discussion at all. It’s about Jerome refunding money and the absolutely generous act of Parker in donating it to the groups listed above. But that’s all it is. And why on earth Jerome’s name needed to be in the title, except for shock value, I have no idea. Isn’t it more productive to talk about the charities and how you can help (while mentioning how she is planning on using the refund)?
Sure, let’s have a discussion about Brown/ Hackett, but if we’re going to, let’s make it about the issues and where people stand on them. I’d welcome a diary from Parker, or yourself, or whomever on that issue…
just my thoughts of course.
Actually, I was speaking to SusanHu’s broader point about attacks on other blogs playing out here. Because, sure as God made little green apples, there are going to be more bannings on those other sites, and angry disenfranchised people wandering over here, as there were after the pie wars. What constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes “venting” and discussing issues can be very much in the eye of the beholder. I would just hate to see this become yet another site, where clubbiness, allegiance to sacred cows, and capricious enforcement become the norm. “It can’t happen here,” are famous last words, in my opinion.
They seem like good thoughts to me.
Susan you know this is not an attack.
This ties in my last diary which also and another diary here on BMT.
And yeah… it was away to get not only Jerome’s attention but renew the attention to Moiv’s great diary… as some one said when given lemons make lemonade… that is what i did.
It’s nice to see that Jerome has agreed to refund your money as you do not agree with his banning of you. Totally different discussion of course and one that has been raging in your diary on the reco list for over a day.
I appreciate that you would like the money donated to the causes you mention above. I commend you for it. That is a true act of generosity on your part.
But… was there a need to mention Jerome in the title? That’s pretty inflamatory considering your other diary. Perhaps changing the title to something about donating to worthy causes and adding in some info about what those two groups do/ are to encourage others to donate time or money as well might add to the discussion and do some good.
Just a thought.
is basically empty now, for the first time ever according to <u>The Nation</u> magazine.
Parker, I think taking Jerome up on his offer and directing the $100 to one of these two efforts is a lovely way to make lemonade from the lemons he clearly threw at you.
And I am the last person to tell another to STFU, and I really appreciate your viewpoint and contributions here.
So please just take this as the advice of a friend. It would be better to retitle this diary to focus on the Lillith and Texas Equal Access funds. We get the point: some bloggers are paid for, and dissent isn’t always tolerated. I humbly and respectfully ask that you move on from writing diaries about this.
Changed the title
Parker — you crack me up!
this is getting outrageous…
What is exactly?
That we would prefer not to start a fucking flame war and rather talk about the issues and organizations vs. specific individuals?
Like talking about the NDN and then tying in Jerome and Kos vs. attacking Jerome or Kos and then tying in the NDN. It is a different form of discussion.
No one asked you to remove your banned from mydd diary. No one deleted it. No one banned you here or troll rated your comments. A lot of people were/ are on your side on the issues.
So yes, some of us asked you to change your title, while respecting your right to say whatever you wanted to in the diary, lauding your decision to donate the money to charity and actually spending time reading and talking about your diary as members of this community.
So I ask you Parker, what is getting outrageous and what is scary shit?
not be having a flame war, why are you faning the flames??
I’m asking Parker to explain her comments. Not trying to start a flame war. But I think based on my participation in this thread and the support I feel for Parker in the banning issue it is totally lame to slam those who are on her side, just would like to stop a flame war between sites from brewing out of control.
sorry if my rhetoric was hot, but I took it personally and wanted an answer.
it is totally lame to slam those who are on her side
Where did Parker do that, exactly?
I’m not saying that you didn’t perceive that she did, just asking you to point it out to me, so I can see if I see the same thing…
I took the “this is getting outrageous” comment as a slam at those of us who respectfully asked her to consider changing her title… and since those of us who did so seemed to be on the same page with her about her value to this community, etc. I thought that was lame on her part and that’s why I took offense.
I just read “He who can not be named”* Swan Song.
For the record…and as I stated in my previous diary HWCNBN was the standard I held all bloggers to. The mere fact that he nor his colleagues can tell me why they banned me is the most distressing. I think that is why this got to me… one can expect lowlife behavior from the “other” blog… but I really never expected this there.
But… hey…crying in ones teacup about being “Attacked” is still a bit silly.
However, I still give the man his due… because I think he is a man of intergrity (shame about his friends) and was not really good at being a blog bully anyway… it is a pity he is stepping away from the blogs and not his friend… who is the one who created the toxic atmosphere in the blogosphere in first place.
From JA’s blog just now:
No upside to posting personal opinions?
Why was this guy blogging anyway?
Whatever.
I think it is a mistake.
HWCNBN closed his blog during the Dean campaign which allowed his evil buddy to get a foothold in the blogosphere. I think this is the same kind of mistake… at least HWCNBN has a soul, which I can not say the same for his friend.
Several of us suggested you change the title, and you did. It wasn’t an edict.
If you hadn’t, I’d still respect your right to say what you please, and I would still seek out your comments. I’m sure susanhu and others would, too. As you said yourself, “banning is weakness.”
You made some excellent points in your first rant, and I think the debate about blog funding and tolerance of dissent should not end here. I thought you changing the title of this diary was a good move indicating your respect for others’ opinions here. That’s how community works, hopefully.
So I hope your cryptic comments just now don’t indicate that you feel you’re being persecuted by BMT. Not at all. Peace.
It wasn’t an edict
Yeah it was.
I thought it was a polite diary… I have done much worse. This is the scary shit. Looks like the blogosphere is being sewn up to be controlled… which sadly in the end will only kill it.
and I meant it as a nudge, not an order.
Your point about the blogosphere turning into commercial real estate is well worth repeating, and Jerome’s exit today seems only to underline that. If you think BMT has also become corrupt, I’d want to hear some evidence. I’ve been treated with respect here always, and the way BooMan has handled cases where most of us disagree with him has shown me this site truly is different from the orange one. I don’t think I have blinders on.
But again, I don’t mean to take away from your grievances. And thanks again for reminding me about the Lilith Fund.
No I didn’t mean it like that…
This is not a blogosphere but a “thug-o-sphere”… and if people don’t like what you say they put pressure on everyone in the vicinity.
Remember how Kos banned the people who even just recommended the diaries he didn’t like… now people are even frighten to recommend a diary that might be on the “List”…..this is why “Collective Punishment” is against the Geneva Conventions…
to admit, that gave me a chuckle too.
I like the new title. It’s constructive and it invites people to join your incredibly important work, Parker.
Looks like I missed the Armando party…
WTF????
I feel soooooo unclean at this moment….
WHO THE FUCK DO THESE ASSHOLES THINK THEY ARE?
They are now down right certifiably delusional….
patriarchy. LOL Armando the frere to nascent bloggers. A bit pathetic.
I say Good Luck to Blogger Boyz and the political blogs. ’06 is going to be very interesting.
Reading thru Hotline’s Blogometer for 10/24, charting the descent of Hackett v Brown online, a battle of the seconds, the various consiglieres and paid online workers over the spoils… clearly, little will be allowed to occur in the shadows.
Interesting thread Parker… thanks for posting that link, as I don’t get to that site.
I thought what mediagirl had to say over at MLW was quite pertinent. She certainly expressed a sentiment a bit more succinctly than I might have. Just a taste:
[…]
This trend towards the strict father model of “liberal” blog politics bothers me. It’s not only against progressive values of nurturing community, but it’s also against the very strengths the internet brings to the grassroots. Real netroots don’t respond well to authoritarian models of behavior. The interactive community-building tools can help the real netroots flourish, but that will come from nurturing it, not scolding and beating on and banning each other. (I think that’s why the radical right, with their authoritarian grassroots structure, has not done so well in developing online presences beyond a few loud and obnoxious blogs, many of which don’t allow comments.)
She also ended her statement with an egalitarian remark that I think is relevant to the nature of BT: it’s about the community – the network of bloggers, of human beings that really matters and in that vein each of those blogs is but one node in a network.
Before this turns into a second dissertation (trust me, I truly never want to go there again!), I’ll merely express my appreciation for BooMan’s willingness to run this blog from more of a nurturing parent model than a strict father model. I get the impression – correctly or incorrectly – that some folks have leaned on Boo to take a more authoritarian tack, but so far he’s stuck to his own vision.
that’s why i don’t get all the angst in yesterdays parker banning diary. i thought it was a wonderful dialog about transparency.
if everyone would do this:
http://mediagirl.org/node/817
there wouldn’t be much to argue about. pretty clean cut pure and simple if you ask me.
you’re right too, JB, you’re instincts are very attuned. mediagirl is not only onto something. i think she’s leading us to higher ground.
i felt the promise several years ago, at the orange site. hasn’t been realized yet, but at least some of us are still looking.
I think MediaGirl just pinned the tail on the donkey (pardon the pun). Lakoff is right about what motivates liberals and how we respond… and it ain’t the likes of “strict father figure” that the freepers need because of their need to follow a regime.
And if you extrapolate MG’s analysis a bit further I can see that this whole debate about Partisan (Strict Father) vs Ideology (Nurturing) is intrinsict in the recent debates. As Lakoff describes no one is 100% of either there is a bit of both in everyone. What the GOPers have been good at is pinpointing and highlighting their values within a Democratic population… hence Reagan Democrats.
IMHO the Partisan (Strict Father) leadership can only be effective in the Democratic party if there is trust that they will protect and perserve the Ideological (Nurturing) side of the party… unfortunately that has not only NOT happened but the Partisan (Strict Father) has gone into full attack mode of the Ideological (Nurturing) leaving the party splintered.
Notice that the GOP has the ultimate Partisan (Strict Father) leadership yet they bend over backwards to preserve and protect their Ideological (Nurturing) side aka wingnuts…hence they are successful.
Here’s a review of how things work on BT:
Questions?
that I am generally willing to allow a diary that is a personal attack against another blogger (within reason and decency) as long as it is cross-posted at that blogger’s site.
And if you have been banned and cannot cross-post it, you are out of luck. As I said elsewhere, I believe everyone person who has been banned from this site has been banned from at least one other site before they got here, and usually more. So, bannees are welcome here, but they can’t bring their baggage here. If that is discriminatory, it is for the greater good of protecting the culture of the site.
question – did you just ban Parker?
I believe everyone person who has been banned from this site
several comments since you made this one, so no.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Booman, you will allow ‘personal attack diaries’ as long as it’s cross posted, you say, but isn’t that against the general policy of ‘don’t do personal attacks’. My feeling are that personal attacks should not be allowed in diaries or comments. Isn’t that the essense of “don’t be a prick” and I do hate that phrase, which seems sexist to me(don’t be a jerk would work better for me).
I sure would not want to see a personal attack diary with my name in the title posted here.
Other than that I agree with you and Susan and Catnip….It’s your house Boo!!! We are the guests and should behave as such!!
Diane, if someone thinks so-and-so blogger is a liar, a thief, a scoundrel, or whatever, and they are posting those thoughts as the blogger’s site and back up and defend their opinions, then they can cross-post it here.
I am not saying that discussing the character of other bloggers is out-of-bounds. I am saying there are restrictions. You have to cross-post it, and if you can’t, then the diary is out-of-bounds.
That is a pretty lenient policy. But some people want the world.
May I suggest you do a “Let’s define “Being a jerk” diary as it still comes up over and over, not sure that it can be defined adequately enough but should we try????
not today. I’m feeling jerkish myself today.
It is pretty sad that people are so desperate to attack other people that they feel the need to define the parameters of jerkish behavior.
Ideally, people wouldn’t even come close to the line.
anyone, bu, there does seem to be a need to define what you want going on on this site further, given the past two weeks of arguments over what is and what isn’t “supposed to be going on” — it started with the “support the troops” stuff, then moved on to “this is a blog for getting democrats elected, so why aren’t all of you people doing what you’re supposed to be doing?” arguments and on and on.
I see things going on on this blog EVERY DAY, that I could point to and say “hey, that’s being a prick/jerk”, but I don’t because unless I can see how it violates some clearly articulated rule, I don’t think it would be worthwhile or productive for me to do so.
If someone jumps all over my shit for posing questions, or asking for clarification, or for the courtesy of a response, then they will get the same as they dish out — it is the appearance of double-standards that is what is causing all of the arguments — if people are free to express their opnions, then other people are free to disagree and/or argue their position — what I don’t get is how it is not being a prick to tell people that their opnions/ideas are not valuable, being arrogant, dismissive and self-congratulatory is being a prick in my book.
What a sad day in Booland.