Has anyone seen the list of hosts for this group? Thoughts?
On edit, here is the list:
1 Lithos
2 undergroundrailroad
3 maddezmom
4 Bolo Boffin
5 Ohio Joe
= new reply since forum marked as read
So would a lot of others, which is my point.
Otherwise, I think you explained yourself pretty well. Why not repost it without the personal references?
On edit: I forgot that you can't post in this thread again -- so sorry.
In this case, it may well be that I missed the rollicking good old days. 
At any rate, I have always thought that they did a good job, even if I was sometimes perplexed by individual decisions. (Given the way DU2 moderation was set up, and people's various posting behaviors, I would expect to be perplexed sometimes even if the moderators shared my interpretations of the rules and were flat-out perfect.)
I know I'd be gone 
I really don't understand the politics enveloping this forum. What exactly does the term "toombstone" mean? Surely to goodness Spooked hasn't been declared DOA for saying something to the effect that Ron Paul should get the Rethug nomination. I don't know why people can't express themselves the way they want if this site is supposed to represent anything resembling democracy. Also, it would appear that the foxes (that, of course, would be anyone who believes the OC story put out by government) are running this ol' hen house; i.e., they seem to be disproportionately represented here. Does one get banned for voicing such an objection? When I say I don't understand the politics, that's exactly what I mean. Is it considered free speech only when uttered within certain perameters? What are people afraid of? Guess I'm trying to get to the bottom of what comprises free speech here. I'd be grateful for either a hen or a fox to answer but preferably both. And if I haven't asked the right questions, feel free to answer any questions I might have done well to ask. Thanks, guys/gals.
I have to have a sense of humor; else, I'd go quite mad. It seems that my mind doesn't work like most people's do--a mixed blessing to be sure. Opinions which fly in the face of my own (arrived at after due consideration) are quickly forgotten. I couldn't even imagine writing to any of the leaders from this or any other board to say that a published opinion contrary to mine should undergo examination for deletion. I truly think that to be too absurd to even contemplate. I'd choose to let it ride. If, however, I find to my utter dismay that the same opinion is voiced again and again, I might just give it a response--but that would be the extent of my horror, disgust, disconbobulation, or other negative feeling--and my participation. There is one reason for censorship--and only one--fear of authority. And make no mistake about it, I believe that many of these boards are under threat--veiled or otherwise. Just enough tolerated to be seen by some as the presence of some modicum of free speech but not enough to truly make it so. If I'm wrong (HORRORS!), I should be able to get some idea by lurking about some of the Rethug sites to determine what sorts of things are being banned there. Might be an intereting exercise if only I could develop a stomach of iron.
I think more than censoring opinions it would be better to ensure that we all separate the opinion from the person. You're an idiot to think as you do is clearly verboten. I find some of the ideas you have proposed to be idiotic; e.g., (list examples).--quite acceptable. I mean who among us has not come up with ideas that others think are idiotic; however, such ideas don't make the person coming up with them an idiot. Attack the idea and not the person, said she who's certainly at some point been guilty of non-compliance. I see a host cracking down on that sort of the thing--and believe me, if I knew that each and every time I pulled such a boner I'd be getting my ears pinned back, I'd be scrutinizing my words before posting.
But I couldn't imagine censoring an idea except in my own mind. I'm censoring all the time but I do so object when others censor on behalf of "a group." Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, let me assure each and everyone of you that I KNOW this makes me the odd "man" out--which is, perhaps, why I don't say too terribly much (as a rule). I've just never been a "group" person. So one thing is patently clear to me that I'm far too permissive to ever qualify as a host either here or on any other board--not that I was asked may I hasten to add--I'm just admitting to knowing my limitations.
As for the hens and the foxes. I'm a bonafide hen who believes (cannot prove) that 911 was an inside job, so quite naturally anyone who disagrees with that belief must by my definition be a fox. But lest anyone here take exception, I'd be the first to admit that foxes are far cuter than hens--although a might more dangerous, don't you think? And for those extraordinary few who can't, won't, daren't come down on either side of the debate--well, maybe, just maybe they are the really wise ones cuz let's face it, who among us can say we have the evidence. We don't. That being said, I make decisions every single day without ALL the FACTS. I can never have ALL the FACTS. Pieces of the puzzle are always missing, so what we generally do is hedge our bets to make the best decisions with the information we have on hand.
And that's what I've done with 911. Because I have absolutely no forensic evidence in hand (nor does anybody else in the general public), I have to dig deep into the U.S. as a whole. I have to look at its history, its methods of "persuasion"; its media; its laws; its government; its justice system; its inner cities; its disenfranchised; its sick; its treatment of third world countries; its treatment of its captors; its treatment of countries from which it wants resources; its willingness to abandon its own people in order to serve the super-rich who go to third world countries for cheap labour; its willingness to go along with globalization which means the people of this and other "democratic" nations will soon be working for peanuts. I look at all these various factions and how the ruling elite deal with them. And what I see is not at all pretty. Three thousand plus lives lost in 911 compared to the millions who have suffered as a result of U.S. policy within and without the U.S. and it is without any hesitation that I say it is highly likely 911 was an inside job. Prove it? Can't. However, there is no doubt in my own mind that the odds are very, very much in my favour. And in the absence of hard evidence, there we be. Engage in some serious, courageous introspection and the lights will appear. And lest you think I'm singling out the U.S. for derision, I am not. All of our so-called democratic countries can take its fair share of the brunt. Until S. Harper became P.M. we in Canada did not go for god, flag and country thing. We were extremely introspective. But now, a la the U.S., we've got the flag flying and we hear Harper invoking god to bless us. And I ask whatever for? What makes us so special? That's rhetorical. I don't feel for any country. I feel for people--regular, everyday people who hurt and bleed as I do--who love their kids every bit as much as I love mine. Countries are for those who would wield power and get their people to obliterate others in the name of the homeland but only for the GOOD of the ruling elite . What utter rubbish!!
And while I may disagree with you foxes, I like to believe that I know where you're coming from and therefore hold no grudges--although there was a time when I did.
You've been kind in answering my questions so I thank you for that. Cheers all!!
OTOH - "You write, "You're an idiot to think as you do is clearly verboten," but I can't tell whether you mean that you think it's acceptable to censor personal attacks, or not. I think that it is."
AQ - "Attack the idea and not the person, said she who's certainly at some point been guilty of non-compliance. I see a host cracking down on that sort of the thing...."
--so, yes, I very much agree that attacking a person should be censored. Come to think of it, I just received a personal message (not you nor anyone else with whom I have ever shared words with on this or any other thread) sent me a rather nasty note suggesting in the very strongest of terms that I withdraw myself from the gene pool. I was somewhat taken back but amused at the same time - Who does that sort of thing? Besides, he's far too late--my genes have already been passed on. Oh, oh, I can hear him now, "WTF"!!!!!!
You're absolutely right, particularly given your example, Mitt Romney - or any of the current batch of Rethug reprobates. However, having said that, I think it's quite possible (if not probable) that there could come a time when a Republican candidate might be better option over a Democrat. I've never voted along party lines. In Canada, you can oftentimes see people switch from one party to another to another. We never declare what we are Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green for that reason and because a long time back we believed our vote was sacred and was not to be disclosed to anyone. There was a time when even husband and wife would not declare to each other which way they were going to vote. But in general, I don't have a good view of political parties either here or in the States, but I'll spare you the details.
OTOH " don't follow the reasoning. If the point is that people in power often don't mind hurting innocents, I certainly agree with that. But I think there are lots of things that have killed three thousand people or more that weren't inside jobs. "
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. It is a mindset of which I speak. The millions I came up with are the result of ruined lives (and by extension familes) of incarcerated people (Prisons are an industry!!! Pure capitalism with no concern for democracy or justice) in for marijuana is a travesty, exceedingly political, and has nothing to do with the characteristics of marijuana, ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis alcohol. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Then take the millions who go without benefit of medical care and medicine because they can't afford it and those who can afford it only because their work covers them but after that they are finished because they can't afford the premiums. Your system (and our soon to be system if Harper has his way) is profit for sickness which in a civilized country should just never be). People are dying in the U.S. all the time because of non-existent health care for those without the $$$$. When an administration allows its people to be unnecessarily incarcerated and left dying and/or in great pain, you have an administration that would not hesitate to sacrifice 3000 lives for the sake of shoring up the war machine. None whatever.
The injustices that lie within the U.S. are so egregious. That by extrapolation is a strong indication to me that people are not uppermost in the minds of the ruling classes. People are dispensable. That the U.S. and yes, the U.K. would send its young men and women to war on a whim (911 or not they had no proof of anything, especially in light of Bushco declaring they couldn't possibly have seen this coming and yet they claim to have solved the mystery in a mere matter of hours and days--completely and totally unbelieavable to me). Four thousand of some of your best have died--and for what? Again, people are dispensable so long as money can be made. Big money. Humungous amounts of money.
Torture admitted to and would do again - People are dispensable. There are contractors involved. Sadism at its possible worst We in Canada were a little sneakier cuz we took one of ours knowing full well we had nothing on him and turned him over to the U.S. (and why? because the U.S. wanted him, that's why) who in turn turned him over to Syria where he was systematically tortured. Oh, that was a winner. So, again, I'm not toting my country up as being the paragon of virtue. Ha! That would be the frosty Friday. In fact, we're getting closer to your system with every minute that our P.M. remains in office. And I don't like what I see coming down the pike in that regard.
Your country has systematically gone into other countries stirring up whatever and in whatever way necessary to get what capitalism wants. Your country and that of the U.K., and a few others of the Willing have killed and maimed well over 1 MILLION Iraqis in order that you may bring them democracy. People are dispensable for the right cause--the cause of runaway Capitalism.
So a mere 3,000 people on 911--3,000 more than either you or I could ever possibly condone would, to the administration, mean zilch. It's a hard pill to swallow which is precisely why the people of the U.S. are not willing to do the swallowing. And I can in many ways understand that. I have spent a lot of time in the U.S. and I can tell you that I never met a Yank I didn't like--as hosts--the best. Of course had I met all of you, you wouldn't come out any better than people in any other country including my own. Guess I got really lucky. But to a person, had I posed the idea that their ruling elite could sacrifice 3000 people on U.S. soil so that war could commence, they'd have told me I had rocks in my head (if that, indeed, was what I could call it!). And just why couldn't they suppose their government could do such a thing? Because they themselves couldn't relate in any way whatever. But they are starting to piece things together. They're starting to reflect that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. is really no better than a lot of countries out there--that their ruling classes are exactly the same as all ruling classes. The ruling classes think differently--and can never be mistaken for people with empathy for their fellow man; e.g., Everyman from EveryCountry.
And finally, you can check this out if ever you cared to (or perhaps already have). Democracy is anethema to the ruling classes. Democracy does not work for them which is why we are increasingly going to see it dwindle down to nothing.
As for whether "they" are capable of pulling a 911 off or whether "they" did pull it off, we may never know until a full investigation can be launched by independent parties (choosing that group will be a daunting if not impossible task in and of itself).
This debate can go on forever and day and neither side can claim that it is right. All I have ever maintained is that I BELIEVE that Bushco was responsible in large part for 911 and as a betting person, I believe that I (among others) have nailed it.
Proof? None, Zilch, Zippo - but then the "foxes" have none either.
Whether we agree or disagree, I can honestly say that I've enjoyed this exchange. And to show you just how vulnerable I can make myself......the following............... There is not a lot that I am adamant about. I generally see lots of gray areas within which lots of different shades.............so I can be persuaded especially when someone can show me a gray I haven't seen before. But on this 911 thing, I find myself being so adamant, I sometimes can't believe just how adamant I am. I am wellllllllll ADAMANT!!!
By which, obviously, I mean not so much.
Yeah, I don't really understand the mindset of someone who would send a message like the one you describe. I can, and do, totally lose my temper, but not in that exact way.
Yes, certainly a particular Republican could be preferable to a Democrat. I even remember Daily Kos endorsing a Republican over a (corrupt) Democrat back in 2008; I'm not sure how DU handled that.
I think many among the ruling classes do just fine under democracy -- which typically gives them a lot of room to do as they wish -- but of course there are always some who intend to do even better.
I broadly (not in every detail) agree with Nuclear Unicorn's comments in another thread: even if one stipulates that the Bush administration would cheerfully have sacrificed 3,000 Americans in order to drum up support for war, the details don't make a lot of sense. As long as they're cleverly blowing up buildings, why not frame a few Iraqis, at least? It seems more like a drunken first draft of a thriller plot than an actual cynical ploy.
OK. But I still don't know why.
I'm still stuck on the divide between "would" do it and "did" do it, and most of the reasons people have offered me for believing in "did" are... well, unconvincing to me. So, there, I'm adamant too. But I like to think it's a pretty soft sort of adamant.Also, I think the DU3 TOS is clearer than it was on DU2. Both members were guilty of TOS violations, as far as I can see.
I can see what you are saying about the post that got him banned. Since he is a long-term member, I suspect that the admins did some researching of their own.
I am aware of a few instances where members were permitted to return, but largely, they seem to be forever.
Thanks for the post! Sounds like you got what I was trying to say.
It might be that the PM's weren't received?
On edit: I also think that the other hosts are good (just in case this post could have been misinterpreted). I wanted to see both sides represented, however, and I think eomer will do an excellent job.