Daily Kos

The conspiracists

by kos

Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:48:56 AM PDT

Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

Tags: meta (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 670 comments

  •  Good. (4.00 / 21)

    Who wants Kos to become the Little Green Footballs or FreeRepublic of the left. Time to shun the crazies.

    by nitpicker on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

    •  Thanks (none / 1)

      Someone else can start Little Blue Footballs.  

      Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.

      by rhubarb on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:22:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if there is any truth to the... (none / 0)

        ...we're being invaded by puglican plants rumor, this would help kill it.

        by creativedissonance on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:24:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Juntos podemos! (4.00 / 3)

        "Pedemos" means something entirely different (but even more appropriate for conspiracy nuts)

        ZNet Commentary

         In a pitch to politically significant Latino voters, one of the banners proclaimed "Juntos Podemos"-Together We Can. But the Houston Chronicle reported it as Juntos Pedemos-We Fart Together. For many Americans, that's a fair summation of what today's political system delivers.

        The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

        by lawnorder on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:32:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yup (none / 1)

          one massive brain fart.

          by elmo on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:36:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that's certainly something to aspire to. (none / 0)

          Buenos Nachos!

          McCain

          by MasonLee on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (none / 0)

          I needed a good laugh.
          That does describe LGF pretty well.

          The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

          by justme on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:35:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That not the first HouChron Spanish bungle ... (none / 0)

          Fifteen years or so ago on New Years Day, the Chronicle featured on the front page of the Metro section a collage of Houston New Years revelers and the phrase "Happy New Years" in several different languages.  A nice little idea in theory.

          Now I don't have a profane Spanish speaker handy so I can't say exactly the word they mistook for "Years" in Spanish, but the meaning ended up being "Happy New Asshole" (or "Ass").  I thought it was appropriate for the a story about an election-winning politician, but not so much for New Years Day.

          i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

          by bustacap on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I understand is ... (none / 0)

            Ano with the tilde over the n means year.

            pronounced "anyo"

            Ano with no tilde is anus.

            My Spanish has deteriorated terribly, but I used to correspond with a few Spanish-speaking people via e-mail. When I was using the word year, I would type - "anyo" - because I couldn't type the n-tilde symbol.

            America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

            by Tony Seybert on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:39:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Año, Anio and Ano (none / 0)

              a tilde is ALT+0241, and if that doesn't work, most type "anio."

              Reminds me of the great pain I once had representing to an agent in Madrid a Portuguese-language publishing house called "Ano Luz."

              "Light Anus"  

              Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.

              by rhubarb on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 04:02:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "Happy New Asshole" (none / 0)

            The perfect New Years card for 2000 and 2004

            :(

            The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

            by lawnorder on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:13:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Who decides which conspiracy theories (4.00 / 46)

      are acceptable?

      The American people were lied to repeatedly in order to go to war against Iraq.  Conspiracy theory?  Nope, fact.

      The growth of paperless voting machines along with partisan election maneuvering has made recent election results highly dubious.  Fact.  (and by the way, how further are we in the fight to get paper trail voting?  .... thought so.  Fraudsters were told to "Go away.  We have plenty of time.  Nothin to see in Ohio.  Move along.")

      Pearl Harbor?

      Lee Harvey Oswald?

      Don't know enough about either of the last two to decide either way.  That's up to the individual.

      I dunno.  There was a bunch of other legitimate "conspiracy theories" that a guy listed in a diary yesterday that were in actuality highly debatable/likely with many elements of truth and people falling on both sides.  But I can't find the diary anymore because it has been deleted.

      I agree with you regarding London being a pretty whacked out conspiracy, one that I never put forth.

      But we have to be very, very careful with where we are going here with what is deemed acceptable discourse.

      The Bush administration continually pushes the boundaries of "conspiracy theory" into fact.  We all know now that every word that comes out of Bush and Cheney are stacks of lies.

      How sad is it that people nowadays are even forced to wonder when something like this happens?  I didn't yesterday, but I don't fault a minority for wondering ... just a bit.

      by HariSeldon on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It helps (4.00 / 6)

        to at least have a shred of even circumstancial evidence to support your claim instead of just wild anti-bush accusations.

        Mad Wombat

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:43:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you have a shred of edvidence (4.00 / 5)

          that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack in London?  Granted, we have an admission of guilt that was posted on some Arabic language website yesterday.  One that, from what I understand, had some mis-quotes from the Qur'aan. But does that constitute proof?  Could that be used in a court of law?

          Do we have any proof the Osama Bin Asshole orchestrated the 911 attacks?  NO!  We have all chosen to believe our governments account of the events, because to think otherwise would be too difficult to comprehend.  And why shouldn't we believe our government?  It's not like they are the most corrupt administration since the dawn of the republic who have lied to us every fucking step of the way.

          I think it's a real shame when Kos feels the need to ban people for not thinking in LOCK-STEP with the party line.  I did not contribute to the so-called "conspiracy" theories in question, but they have a place in and a right to join the discussion.  If they are too out of whack with the majority of us then ultimately they will be ignored and eventually disappear.

          by Zero The Hero on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:01:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Other than... (4.00 / 4)

            Do we have any proof the Osama Bin Asshole orchestrated the 911 attacks?  NO!

            Well, I think you mean other than the several video tapes he released admitting to it... yeah, no real proof. here or here

            I think it's a real shame when Kos feels the need to ban people for not thinking in LOCK-STEP with the party line.

            Oh give me a break.

            You claim there is no proof that bin Laden did 9/11, and you want to say it's just cause you aren't in lockstep.

            I'm sorry, but that's just plain not thinking at all... not whether you are in lockstep.

            (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

            by Steve4Clark on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:43:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Baloney. (none / 0)

              So you feel OBL must have orchestrated the attacks simply because he claimed responsibility? That, on its own, is no proof.

              "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." -Gen. Clark

              by assyrian64 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:07:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh huh (none / 0)

                OBL admits to doing something, but I shouldn't believe him because... uhh, why exactly?

                A confession is generally admissable evidence in a court of law.  What evidence do you have to support your point of view?

                Kos should ban a few more people, me thinks.  Go to Democratic Underground where they can flourish in their noise.

                (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

                by Steve4Clark on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:37:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  also (none / 0)

                IIRC, those videos - when translated by non-US government translators - never explicitly said that OBL claimed responsibility for 9/11. So there really is no "reality-based" proof.

                Mistrusted User

                by Planet B on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 07:06:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Really (none / 0)

              I won't get into it but GO research this okay? Look at when it came out. Look at WHO found the tape. Look at the tape!

              How long did it take BL to admit to the attacks? How long does it USUALLY take to claim that you did the bombing etc.? A day?

              "It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an extremely tight president race."

              I guess it's all a coincidence. Damn those nuts!

              If America were to die and an autopsy was to be performed the media would be the cause of death.

              by dynamicstand on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 04:49:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Good point (none / 1)

            "Granted, we have an admission of guilt that was posted on some Arabic language website yesterday.  One that, from what I understand, had some mis-quotes from the Qur'aan. But does that constitute proof?  Could that be used in a court of law?"

            Similarly "Al Qaeda" also claimed responsibility for the Northeastern blackout in 2003

            It makes sense to always intially regard these types of claims, whether from terrorists or from lying governments, from a reasonable, sceptical point of view.

            "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." -Gen. Clark

            by assyrian64 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:57:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rubbish (none / 0)

              There is plenty of evidence of non-Al Qaeda causes for the Northeast blackout, not so for the 9/11 attack.  I suppose there's also no evidence of their involvement in the 1st WTC attack, the bombings of the embassies in east Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole? Those all occured under the Clinton Administration, were they in on the blame Al Qaeda plot?

              by Realist2004 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:11:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pshaw. (4.00 / 2)

                "There is plenty of evidence of non-Al Qaeda causes for the Northeast blackout, not so for the 9/11 attack."

                Your argument is badly formed. Your argument would have been better if you had simply stated "Unlike the 2003 blackout, there is real evidence that 9-11 was caused by Al Qaeda." Lets pretend you made your argument this way. To that I'd answer: "Please provide me that evidence." Good luck with your Googling. If you can provide real evidence, I will believe, 100%, that Al Qaeda was only behind 9-11.

                It seems you make the mistake of confusing those of us who are sceptics, who believe something might be true, or even probably is true, but not completely proven, with people who make statements with no basis in reality. That is unfortunate.

                "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." -Gen. Clark

                by assyrian64 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:13:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Evidence and RESPECT (none / 0)

            People in London are in shock, some are mourning. You remeber how it felt on 9/11, don't you ? The last thing they want to hear NOW is some wide eyed, poorly researched, paranoid theory that the attack was done by one of their own.

            I too harbor my misgivings about how convenient this was for Bush. But this is just based on the lack of trust I have for the man. So I said nothing about my feelings of suspicion out of respect for the victims

            The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

            by lawnorder on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:00:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And one more thing. (4.00 / 4)

          There have been a large number of diaries on this site and articles on other sites devoted to the Valerie Plame outing.  Everyone seems to believe that Karl Rove is the man in the Whitehouse who outed her identity to the reporters, including myself.  I.E. : Raw Story has an article titled "Seventeen in House sign call for Rove to quit over CIA outing."  Wow, I guess he's guilty as charged.

          Do we have proof yet that he outed her, or just that he was in some way involve?  To read all the diaries, you would the think that the case has alrerady been solved and Rove is doing time in jail, but that is not the case.  Once again, Rove's guilt is another Conspiracy Theory; but it's a conspiracy theory everyone here seems to embrace.  Don't be fucking hypocrites and come back to the reality-based community or be prepared to be banned.

          by Zero The Hero on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:09:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Would you have banned (4.00 / 23)

        all of these persons, who were mostly definetely believed to be wild-eyed conspiracy theorists:

        Woodward and Berstein, who carried Watergate for months before anyone else would touch it?

        Those who questioned the accuracy of the Warren Report, years before Congress officially declared that it was innaccurate? ('Nuff said on JFK death)

        The beltway sources in the 60's who leaked that the CIA was working with the Mob against Castro?

        Those on the left who felt that J. Edgar Hoover was conducting "counterintelligence" to destroy those he didn't like?

        Persons who believed that during the Cold War the CIA was conducting mind control experiments on its own personnel, and opening Americans' mail on a widespread basis?

        Am I allowed to post if I believe these things?

        Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S Truman

        by jgoodfri on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:00:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  hey - be happy (none / 1)

        seems you made it through the purge! You should be thanking kos and pledging your allegiance. (joke)

        I think your point is well taken that Bushco have done so much wack shit that it boggles the mind. What would have been yesterday's c-r-a-z-y conspiracy theory is today's shrugged shoulder. But today's conspiracy fanatics (and they still exist) end up JUSTIFYING what Bush is doing by making all criticism seem like wackjob conspiracy theories.

        Conspiracy theories can be fun but should be in a different place than where you try to bring down Bushco.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:11:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well Kos decides... (4.00 / 3)

        Just because he banned people from his site does not mean they cannot start their own.

        This is just like a pub owner kicking out someone offensive.  He has a delicate decision, kick the person out and offend his patrons or not kick him out and offend his patrons.

        While I would prefer to have a space that is open to all points of view it is ultimately his decision.

        All I can say is a "broken clock is right twice a day" (for all you analog oldsters) or "even paranoids have enemies"

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:13:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Evidence separates them. (3.83 / 6)

        If several months or even weeks from now, we have an alternate explanation of this bombing, that has a chain of connected events with even some circumstantial evidence, and also some direct evidence why the official story doesn't add up, then that's different.

        But to seriously entertain conspiracy theories at this point in time, with no evidence other than thinking the bombing might hypothetically in some way benefit someone - well, that's like blaming the Tsunami on Bush and Blair.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:31:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  simple and clear (none / 0)

          Your explanation is right on. There's a big leap from being a skeptic to being a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't matter that today's crazy ideas may be tommorow's facts. An intelligent person may at least consider the idea that BushCo is responsible for untold amounts of evil in the world, but to waste much time gnashing your teeth over it (in public, no less) without any proof whatsoever is just a waste of time. Thousands of hours in idle speculation of this sort is not worth one tenth as much as slowly and carefully helping to convince one fence sitter to come to our side.

          by mnguitar on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:54:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, I'd say this (4.00 / 8)

            "Conspiracy theorists" evidence a certain creativity of thought.  The essence of such thinking is the ability to link seemingly unrelated facts and events with a narrative to explain a connection.  

            It's a way of thinking that benefits many of us in our daily lives.  As a lawyer, the road to a successful summary judgment (victory for my client) was begun with the observation of how odd it was that letters from "witness x" seemed to be formatted identically to correspondence from the office of "lawyer y."  Without disclosing too much, the court determined that no reasonable jury could find that my client had done wrong, becuase of lawyer y's ongoing schemes to "set up" lawsuits just like that one.  

            My "conspiracy thinking" got me a victory.  Above-board, genuine, honest people find it hard to believe that some folks are capable of some of the conduct out there, and it takes a kind of creative thinking to make connections between seemingly unrelated facts to arrive at a plausible narrative/theory/explanation.

            The difference between a "conspiracy theorist" and a nut is that the conspiracy theorist works from facts, laws of physics, provable starting points, and weaves a theory to connect them.  A nut just speculates wildly about the worst evil that might motivate human behavior.  That doesn't mean that there are no conspiracies, or that it's inherently nutty to think in a way that tries to connect things.  Just that a legitimate "conspiracy scientist," if you will, works from a foundation of some provable facts.  

            E.g., Bush admin insiders said he'd been planning to attack Iraq from day one, the Downing Street memo says he wanted to gin up intelligence to support the war, and there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida prior to March 2003.  Ergo, Bush, determined to attack Iraq, fabricated the case for war.  We'll never get into his head, and we'll likely never get good circumstantial evidence that he knowingly made a false case for war, but it's reasonable to draw from various sources to conclude proposition "x," even though that's just a theory (and a theory involving asserted wrongdoing from various individuals and entities, thereby making it a conspiracy theory).

            Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

            by milton333 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:15:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Voyager episode (none / 0)

              Your comment reminds me of the Voyager episode where Seven first thinks Janeway (an later Chakotay) were at the center of a conspiracy to strand the Voyager in the Delta quadrant.

              Just a stray thought and has nothing to do with anything.

              by carlton858 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:06:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  In general usage (none / 0)

              "Conspiracy theory" means more than just a theory about a conspiracy.  Specifically, conspiracy theorists ignore or explain away evidence against them ("the Illuminati set it up to look that way, but actually..."), whereas realistic theories either change (or are discarded) in response to conflicting evidence, or their proponents admit they can't explain it but reserve the right to revive the theory if the new evidence turns out to be incorrect.

              Working to turn Virginia Blue -- and succeeding!

              by Redshift on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 02:29:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  And... (none / 0)

          common sense.

          This business will get out of control...

          by Omar on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:05:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  About that tsunami (none / 0)

          You mean you actually bought that whole "natural disaster" line?

          YOU POOR GULLIBLE FOOL!

          Evidently you don't know anything about the Pentagon's ultra-top-secret SEISMIC WEAPONS PROGRAM!  Come on, think about it!  Why bother with "nukular" weapons when you can eliminate the middleman by going STRAIGHT to the BLAST DAMAGE by creating an ARTIFICIAL EARTHQUAKE?

          I'll be putting up a website Real Soon Now detailing the Pentagon's creation of the EARTHQUAKE INDUCTION RAY which is fired from the TOP SECRET MOONBASE (you only THOUGHT they cancelled the Apollo Program!) that has been IN OPERATION since 1974.

          You'll also learn the REAL REASON for the CHALLENGER DISASTER, the TRUTH about the SUPPOSED DEATH of RICHARD NIXON, and the SECRET WAR being fought between the PENTAGON and the RUSSIAN COSMOSPHERES for control of the LOST ALIEN BIOWEAPONS LAB on the FAR SIDE OF THE MOON!

          The Spirit of 75

          by Thomas Kalinowski on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 03:19:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The fight to get paper trail voting (none / 1)

        I know that wasn't your main topic, but the fact is that we have indeed made progress. Go to VerifiedVoting.org for details. Or join and get their newsletter. :->

        John McCain: no health insurance for kids.

        by AlanF on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:51:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prove it or refute it should be the standard (4.00 / 3)

        People who don't bother to include reasonably corroborated facts nor a rational argument in diaries or threads -- whether dismissing arguments they don't like as CTs or presenting a spanking new CT -- are the same animal IMO.

        Both prefer a murky factesque climate for a debate because points can be rhetoric-based.

        I haven't seen which diaries (and diarists) were banned. I've recommended ones I don't agree with (or don't flatter my world view) if the diarist put some effort into providing a variety of linked sources so the reader could make an independent decision.

        Also, the unifying theory of libruls as conspiracy theorists is the default RW dismissal when inconvenient facts tear up the latest WH propaganda offensive

        Famous librul conspiracy theories I have known:

        • no connection between 911 and Saddam
        • WMD case for war was hyped
        • black voters were targeted for disenfranchisement
        • invading Iraq was a foregone conclusion
        • the Plame affair
        • various WH hit-jobs on honest critics and/or whistleblowers (Eric Shinseki, Gitmo cleric Yee (don't remember first name), Richard Clarke, etc.)

        by Peanut on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Look at the two top posts to see .... (none / 1)

        WHICH VIEW the majority favor by way of mojo. Hands down it is the view against this purge.

        The first one applauds this censorship and is at 21 fours.

        The second is against it and has 46 fours and the mojo is rising.

        Democracy speaks, loud and clear, against this highly UNdemocratic purge.

        And may I just say UGH as regards this purge.

        (Oh, and one more utterance of the wholly ruined "reality based" and my UGHs shall have no limit.)

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:18:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bush Lied, still? (none / 1)

        Actually a lie is different from a mistake.

        The American people were not lied to by Bush, when he said the same thing that Clinton said. Intelligence makes mistakes. The task of gaining information from someone who doesn't want you to have it is errorprone, and difficult.

        Of course, we all know that Clinton lied, but that is ok, because it was just about sex, right?

        Lie: intentional misrepresentation of that you believe to be the truth.

        Mistake: unintentional incorrect action, which may have a number of causes.

        Saddam lied, but we didn't expect anything else from him (aside from mass murder of Kurds with Chemical agents). Wait, if he killed Kurds with chemical agents, that was a Weapon of mass destruction.  Bush told the truth!

        by Don Meaker on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  David Ray Griffin? (none / 0)

        I think Hari has a legitimate question.

        Should we consider David Ray Griffin's books (The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions) consipracy theories we should not discuss here?

        I ask because if one gives credence to Griffin's suggestion that the U.S. government was, at least partially, behind the 9/11 attacks, then it's likely that the U.S. government is, at least partially, behind the London attacks.

        In sum, what can and canot be discussed should be clearly outlined before exiling members.

        by Dr Paul Armstrong on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!! (none / 1)

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:08:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  These days you have to wonder? (none / 1)

      Who really is in the reality based community?

      And who is the conspiracy nut?

      Just posting to check if I have been banned? lol

      I know that this is Markos site, and he deserves to cut anyone he wants. Heck! There are some really whacko posts once in a while.

      To be honest about my personal opinion on this matter? 5 years ago I would have called PNAC a conspiracy nuts dream. Now, I don't...

      Does that mean I think they actually "caused" 911 to happen? HELL NO! I don't even think they would "let it happen". But I do think they did conspire to take advantage of the situation.

      For all of the whacko posts, everyonce in a while the conspiracy nuts make some great points that can even help the reality based communities arguments.

      Does that make me a nut? Maybe? Does that mena that Markos has to keep the people he deems conspiracy nuts?

      Nope. His site, his bandwidth, and his tools to ban them.

      There already enough sites out there to discuss the possibility of conspiracies that those users can turn to.

      Isn't dailyKos labeled (by some) as part of the "left-wing conspiracy" to overthrow the "right-wing conspiracy"?

      I can see the humor in that...

      Now, please respond to let me know if I am still part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Otherwise I may go nuts trying to figure out if I have been "conspired" against? :)

      Drinking Liberally in New Milford

      by m16eib on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:26:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But 5 years ago (4.00 / 4)

        you could've gone to AEI's own website and found everything you wanted to know about PNAC by the people who created it. Proof.

        A theory like "Bush and Blair planned the bombings" is just crazy-ass speculation.

        by grimc on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:33:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Worse it detracts from the real truth (4.00 / 6)

          which is that Blair had prepared to call in every favor, lay all his poltical capital on the line to achieve a breakthrough on two vital issues threatening the world:

          African Poverty and Global warming,

          Blair, knowing he was at the end of his career was about to cash in on 4 years of unwavering support on the Iraq issue and force W to take action on these issues, anmd create a lasting legacy for himself while making the world a better place.

          All lost now.  After a burst of violence, a vital oppourtunity to save the world was lost (I almost threw a shoe through the TV last night when I flipped past Scarborough and heard him sneering about leaders who were discussing African debt and global warming when they "should have been discussing how to help out in iraq and take out these terrorists)

          Conspiracy theories are not only stupid, they make it easier to hide the true dimensions of this tragedy

          Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

          by Magorn on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:51:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The REAL Threat (none / 0)

            Yeah, I bet that when the world ends due to global warming, Scarborough will regret his idiotic stance.  Why don't people understand that this is more dangerous than a thousand nuclear bombs?  What difference does it make whether there are terrorists or not on a planet with no plant life?  Not a whole lot.

            Save a spotted owl: eat a logger

            by Tlacolotl on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:51:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think of Global Warming (none / 0)

              Much like many people considered Nuclear War in the 1950's  The horror was not (as it was when I was growing up) that the World would be destroyed.  Instead it was the far worse fear that the World would go on, but civilization and/or our way of life, would be what was anihilated.  Living in that world would be a far more frightening thing than a simple global cataclysm

              Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

              by Magorn on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:02:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Reality people, please (none / 0)

              A thousand nuclear bombs or the temp of the earth raised a few degrees, but still not the highest its ever been. Uh, hello? Is the scientific community saying that the world would be "lifeless" because of global warming or are you just writing a sci-fi short story?

              Start spreading this meme: The "Weekend at Bernie's" Economy!

              by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 06:32:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  global warming....and calling in chits. (none / 0)

            To me it is vastly silly for Blair to "cash in" support for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan for some unspecified support on Global Warming.

            The only evidence for Global warming is computer models with self referencing feedback. If you feed error back into the inputs, then you can get any result you care to publish.

            Kyoto accord would destroy the US economy, and all that it produces, while ignoring the far dirtier Chinese and African economies. If the intent is to get the most production per unit of carbon dioxide produced, a sensible accord would shut down the african and chinese economies, and keep the US economy.

            New Zealand intended to sell carbon credits, and finds that rather they end up paying carbon taxes.

            Kyoto is, for any modern economy, suicide. Suicide is hardly a fit subject for negotiation.

            by Don Meaker on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:24:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And I would have said... (none / 0)

          Wow... Websites are a dime a dozen, and anyone can easily make one.

          Maybe you haven't noticed how fast, after ridiculous claims by the far right, they have built an entire website around those claims.

          Think "swifties" and the "wintergreen sites" that they had going in a matter of days after their false claims. They may have even built some of those sites before they started leveling those false charges at Kerry...

          I can make wild claims against anything or anyone and have a site up the next day... Doesn't make it true.

          Drinking Liberally in New Milford

          by m16eib on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:56:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  On the Contrary (4.00 / 20)

      What makes Little Green Footballs and FreeRepublic the marvels of mass psychosis that they are is not just the craziness of the individuals who post there.  It also has a lot to do with the authoritarian editorial practices of the administrators, who see to it that unwanted viewpoints quickly disappear and troublesome posters--often bearing news from the reality-based community--get banned.  No fresh air gets in, no new angles get considered, no real debate occurs--and all America suffers as a result.

      What Kos has just done--no doubt with the most honorable and reasonable of intentions--takes us down the same road.  We, too, can become a mindless echo-chamber of spoonfed talking points.  We, too, can close our ears to different, challenging points of view forever.  We, too, can become so insecure in our ability to reason and moralize that we can't abide even the slightest difference of opinion in what is, for goodness's sake, a virtual community.

      Like others, I have noted a decline in the quality of postings on DKos.  I have also noted a rise in the arrogance of a self-appointed "elite" who feel it is their right and even their duty to take charge of the conversations on dKos.  A long comment of mine trying, in anguish, to weigh American culpability against that of Iraqi insurgents was erased.  This was no "wild anti-Bush attack"--it was a deliberately sober moral assessment.  It rubbed someone the wrong way and boom!--all that work was gone.  I also ran across a posting that brought up an AP report about the Israeli government's potential foreknowledge of the London bombings.  Was it engaged, supported, argued down?  No, it was troll rated away with no substantive remarks, so most Kossacks will never get to consider and discuss this little possible shard of reality.  I don't myself go in for Israeli conspiracy theories, but I do like to hear all sides.  Don't you?

      I've been on DKos for a while now, but I'm starting to see it as an obstacle to clear thought and political virtue.  So I'm quitting it, at least until it gets its head straight about what values are most important to it.  Anyone want my member number?

      -8.63, -7.69

      by YoloMike on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:35:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pretty much my feelings (4.00 / 9)

        I think the issue is a matter of tone.  I have read the David Ray Griffin book "The New Pearl Harbor", that considers a variety of alternative theories about 9/11.  Does he come out and say that Bush did it? Not at all, he simply lays out the flaws in the official story, and makes calm arguments for considering alternatives.

        I think we should be open to that type of discourse here on Kos.  I think we live in weird times, when public officials brazenly do things that we never would have considered acceptable in the past.  How far would they be willing to go?  I don't know, but I have chosen to keep an open mind.  

        I understand the concern about our opponents picking up "lunatic rants" here and ascribing them to the general Kos community.  But if we stifle all discussion, we are giving in to our opponents.  How is this different from the treatment Howard Dean got?   Every time he would state an uncomfortable truth, they would brand him as crazy.  Sometimes Dean could have said the same thing in a more diplomatic way, but I'm not sure that would have changed anything in the reaction.  

        All I'm saying is, yes, let's maintain some standards of debate and discussion here.  Just don't close our minds to ideas that may have seemed fringe at one time, but are definitely within the realm of possibility.

        by gothamite on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:49:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is a slippery-slope argument (none / 0)

        And the problem with slippery-slope arguments is that they can easily be taken too far. (!)

        "C'mon -- if THAT were true, you wouldn't be getting the news from some crazy email forwarded by your brother-in-law!"

        by technopolitical on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:58:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How slippery is your slope? (none / 1)

          Some people probably got banned for very minor offenses, but I would figure that the majority were contributing significantly to the degeneration of critical thinking that tends to make us all look like a bunch of crazies by association.

          Based on the simple idea of looking at a significant event and picking out people that would stand to gain from it, you could surmise that WeightWatchers invented new types of fattening oils, and possibly even sponsored fast food chains to turn america fat, so that they could profit.  

          Just cause it's plausible doesn't make it true (or even likely).  Too many crack-pot theories were springing up with no foundation, and they were garnering support from a lot of people.  

          This recent attack in London doesn't even support the administration's agenda.  But the 9/11 incident on the other hand...

          When they kick at your front door, How you gonna come? With your hands on your head - Or on the trigger of your gun : The Guns of Brixton

          by nonoose on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:18:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But I agree with you! (none / 0)

            The slippery slope argument I intended to criticize was that banning a few would lead to oppressive conformity. On the contrary, I think it is a fine idea and will improve the site, particularly if only Kos does it. No dangerous slope here.

            "C'mon -- if THAT were true, you wouldn't be getting the news from some crazy email forwarded by your brother-in-law!"

            by technopolitical on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I was talking on this subject... (none / 0)

        Just yesterday, in fact.

        (Names changed to protect the innocent, i'm the one discussing DKos and RedState of course.)

        (01:36:36) xxx: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/5/204739/7372
        (01:36:42) xxx: if i hadn't shown you before
        (01:36:44) xxx: was playing some WC3
        (01:37:27) xxx: "It must be quite depressing to be a scientist and a conservative these days. And awful lonely to boot. You guys can win over every single one of those disaffected rational people."
        (01:37:29) yyy: saw that
        (01:38:08) xxx: *nod*
        (01:38:15) xxx: it illustrates the difference between DKos and RS nicely
        (01:38:22) yyy: da
        (01:38:28) yyy: haven't been booted yet [My clarification: from RedState]
        (01:38:55) xxx: although both have their "accepted facts" and narratives DKos's has come, more or less, out of debate and a common understanding between the users and is open to change
        (01:39:35) xxx: (for a while, pointing out the various suspicious (or outright fraudulent) electoral tactics used in 2004 was a sure-fire way to get bitched out and down-rated on DKos, now it's not anymore)
        (01:40:14) xxx: if you post on DKos and try to challenge this common understanding you're going to get beaten around, especially if you're not air-tight solid
        (01:40:24) yyy: *nods*
        (01:41:38) xxx: but on RedState there is no "common understanding", instead the understanding is imposed as top-down orthodoxy. Even though a lot of posters agreed with and quietly started questioning whether it was a good idea to jump in the anti-science brigade's boat and there might have possibly even been discussion between the various factions that all got shut down because it crossed certain lines
        (01:42:18) xxx: on DKos i've even seen some angry, though well-written, right-wingers who come in to yell at the Kos posters get on the recommend list (mostly because DKos-ers like watching right-wingers get yelled at, i suspect--but nonetheless)
        (01:42:49) yyy: heh
        (01:42:50) xxx: you can get sunk with some zeroes, but pretty much the only way to get outright banned is to be a completely ridiculous fucker
        (01:43:16) xxx: like, spamming the comment section or posting private information of others or breaking some laws or something along those lines

        I think my position should be clear. I'm not going to say Kos made the wrong decision, but i remain suspicious of it.

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:42:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I concur wholeheartedly (none / 0)

        Your comments are right on.  What attracts me to message boards, blogs and websites is not the fact that I agree with the viewpoints expressed, but that I can read all possible sides of a story.  Some of the best political literature is written by the extreme left or right.  I am a lurker of dkos, and I am not even American and even if I was, I probably might be a Republican-leaning voter.  But like Socrates, I always question every single one of my beliefs no matter how dearly held.  I come here time to time to get some of the best criticism of the US Republican establishment.

        FreeRepublic has become the Pravda of the Republican talking points central committee.  Don't let dkos go down that same death spiral by becoming the Democratic version of this.

        by CadorBolin on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 06:40:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  old boss/new boss (4.00 / 4)

      "....An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials.  

      Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

      by cyclonejim on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:36:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (none / 0)

      I was shocked to be having a battle with someone yesterday about whether Bush planned 9/11 and Blair planned the London attacks.  The lunacy was amazing, as were the quickly personal nature of the attacks when I mentioned that I found the theories totally ridiculous.  

      John McCain: Healthcare for kids? Not in the Bush-McCain America.

      by bosdcla14 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or that the Israelis knew about / were behind 7/7 (none / 0)

        And had all their embassy people stay safe at home. It reminded me of the rumor that all the Jews working in the WTC stayed home on Sept. 11.

        What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

        by strandedlad on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:42:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Would have a true "rejction" button (none / 0)

      as an anti-recommend be a workable function to help alleviate this sort of thing?

      I can reccomend a diary, but I can't 'sink' a diary I find an embarassing mess. I can only undo what I do (i.e I cna only unreccomedn my prior recomendation).

      But I have no ability to toss a diary an anvil so to speak.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:36:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe in a future release, the reccomend feature (none / 0)

        can be a scale, like the comments. tu's could rate zeroes, and have it on a 1-4 scale. then maybe a link to a rated diaries page. that would be an interesting thing to be able to pull up the daily rated diaries. just a thought.

        your zero becomes the anvil.

        -7.25 -5.74

        by blackfrancis on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:40:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Where does that name come from? (none / 0)

      LGF I mean.
      What is its origin?

      6/24/05: Charlie the Tuna Creator Dies En lieu of flowers, please bring mayonnaise, chopped celery and paprika.

      by LunkHead on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:45:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always appreciated the high tolerance level (4.00 / 12)

    of dkos, even for people like that.  I think some people have taken it for granted though, or think that bannings or diary deletions should never happen under any circumstances, as the reaction to Armando's diary deletion showed yesterday.

    But you're right, a "reality based" blog should try to make sure that we talk about, you know...reality.

    Mad Wombat

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:46:43 AM PDT

    •  agreed but (4.00 / 8)

      kos, about those people that recommend a crazy diary.   i've done that once & found it plausible enought to recommend so that it'd be explored. i  posted a response that i wanted more info (not joining the conspiracy).  I stayed with the story.  found it false & unrecommended.

      hope we're not losing those people (gulp! unless you really don't want me??)

      whatever the case, i'm glad to see this purge.  i've wondered about trolls who push these theories as well as liberals who hurt our cause by going over the edge.  good call.

      btw, you sound stressed out.  given your position i can understand, but i hope you get a chance to take a breather.

      Texas Kaos Take Back Texas

      Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

      by krazypuppy on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:16:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I share your concern (4.00 / 9)

        sometimes, even when a diary doesn't merit recommending, I recommend it because the comments it elicits are so worth reading.

        by GN1927 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:23:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes Yes Yes (4.00 / 8)

        I have recommended diaries before not based on the content, but on the discussion contained in the thread.

        Markos doesn't make clear whether these are systematic bad-diary-recommenders or what, but I would hope he would consider a little more than a name on a Who's Recommended screen before choosing to ban.  

        by KB on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:33:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds too harsh to me (4.00 / 6)

        I didn't recommend any of the CTs from yesterday but it sounds way too harsh to ban people who just recommend something. Perhaps a "time out" or an irate e-mail would be more fair...

        The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

        by lawnorder on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:35:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What were the Conspiracy Theory diaries (none / 0)

          from yesterday?

          I often recommend diaries just because I think the general topic (i.e. homeland security)is important.  Sometimes (at work, in a hurry) I skim the text without reading the whole thing.  

          by diana04 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:54:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  One said "Jews did it" (none / 0)

            Other apparently said Bush & Blair did it. I missed most of it since I was kind of busy offline.

            It was a nasty thing to say, right after the attack. Racist too. The last thing I wanted to hear on 9/11 and 9/12 was some half arsed conspiracy theory about how my own government or a different race did it. I hated how Howard Stern said "nuke all muslims" right after Oklahoma city!

            The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

            by lawnorder on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:52:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am also glad that something was done (none / 0)

        but I'd much rather the higher standards be put on diaries and not so much comments or recommends.

        (-2.5, -4.3) Meta-Buddha is not perturbed. All will scroll away, as it should. --melvin

        by BrianK on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:31:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would go even further (none / 0)

        to say that it is not worth "unrecomnending" a topic simply because it was explored and found to be false. I find learning things to be a great experience and I highly recommend that experience regardless of the outcome.

        I do worry that this sets a precedence towards leaving many stones unturned in our quest for truth. BUT I also think that it is not the end of the world since there are conspiracy sites to turn to to explore some of those possibilities if people really want to.

        I would think that if he could spare the space on the servers, Markos could consider making a section that would be labled "conspiracies" and those posts would end up in that repository forever if they proven false, and possibly elevated to the "reality based section" (You know with the rest of the diaries) if they are proven to be realistic, plausible OR true after discussion. I don't know how "Scoop" works AND I also don't know if Markos can spare all of that space and bandwidth. This is an active community...

        Drinking Liberally in New Milford

        by m16eib on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  see your point (none / 0)

          these "crazy" diaries have been some of our best IMHO mostly b/c (1) so many of our communities best get the real data up & (2) the community really shows it's strict adherence to "reality" - & that is both comforting & sets a standard.

          i do think it's better to UNrecommend b/c that diary bumps someone else off & getting on the reco list gives the theory a stamp of kos approval which we do not want freepers using against us.

          furthermore, these diaries can embarrass some of the elected officials on here.  so i'd recommend UNrecommending.

          but everything, i'm with ya.  these diaries have been some of the best b/c the community's best give you so much good data to refute the conspiracy.

          that doesn't mean we should keep having them tho!

          Texas Kaos Take Back Texas

          Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

          by krazypuppy on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:09:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  thank you, kos. (4.00 / 4)

    the air was getting a little thin around here lately.

    by Manhattan Dan on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:46:45 AM PDT

  •  Discipline (4.00 / 9)

    Not sure what I think about the mass banning, since I didn't really view these diaries, but ...  We could all use a little more discipline both in diary posting and commenting.  The quality of both has plummeted in recent weeks.

    I mean, even front page posters have been guilty.

    I'm for, generally, increasing the quality of content here.  Other measures might be needed -- Like forcibly restricting the number of diaries that can be posted per week.

    It's not diaries ... more like diarrhea.

    Welcome to the Great Foreclosure.

    by bink on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:47:05 AM PDT

    •  Solution seems to be... (4.00 / 3)

      ...finding some way to institute a diary-rating system. I'm sure that would have some effect on server load, but it would go a VERY long way in cleaning up the diaries.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:48:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  God no. . . (4.00 / 3)

        Let it be done by the front page elite.  Personally, I already think there's been to much mob rule in shouting down comments.

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:54:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "Front Page Elite" have been... (none / 1)

          doing a great job, as of late, and I see no reason why they should not have more control here.  As a matter of fact, it's about time to have some more structure here.  People have been saying things which embarrass this website, and kos is completely right to get rid of those people.  Kos and Armando are our first line of defense against the non-Reality-Based Community.

          by teenagedallasdeaniac on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:11:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Armando? (3.53 / 15)

            The guy who defended Plame as a First Amendment hero?  This place is starting to sound like a church.  Get all the Elder's together to vote out the riff-raff.  God forbid we engage them.  And that little slight to the "fraudsters" is incredibly arrogant.

            Wojo

            by jasonwhat on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:42:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dunno if this is the time or place... (4.00 / 5)

              ...for me to bust out with my "dKos Constitutional Monarchy" theory. But sometime this weekend I may just do it. The threads yesterday about Armando's diary deletion, and now this, suggest to me that the time for a discussion about this site has come.

              Basically, I think the frontpagers do a good job, but I'd feel more comfortable if we were a bit more democratic about this stuff.

              I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
              Neither is California High Speed Rail

              by eugene on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:33:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please (none / 1)

                God yes. A couple of the front-pagers are out of control, and some of this needs to be discussed.

                "Hey moon, please forget to go down. Hey moon, don't you go down."--PATD

                by PerfectStormer on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:38:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely (none / 0)

                I'd like to see such a discussion. But be prepared for the onslaught.

                by jbane on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:55:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Kos (none / 1)

                It's his site. It has his name on it.

                There is a lot of garbage posted here I wouldn't want my name associated with, but Kos has been very generous to the guests who come here.

                Kos set this up and paid for the site the software the servers so that you and the other 60,000 guests could post comments, read diaries, and front page stories.

                He picked his editors.. he lays down the rules.

                I think he has given the guests here a great gift. A place to discuss the issues of the day. He has created a community.

                I just don't think when it comes to some of this stuff, democracy come into the discussion.

                Polly

                by pollyusa on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 05:48:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  That would be nice... (4.00 / 5)

        In addition to a "recommend this diary" button, a "God, no, this is crap" button might help. Of course, then the gamers of such systems would have their day shooting down good diaries. I guess front-pager patrol is the best thing going--thanks for the hard work, gang. :)

        by Dana in MN on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:17:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about that... (4.00 / 5)

        ...something I"ve always wondered about is why you can only unrecommend a diary you've recommended.

        If you could code it to allow the unrecommended button to show up regardless and just subtract from the "score" when that is pressed.  That way we can downgrade a diary we might find inappropriate.  

        This will prevent the freeperesque members from getting a recommendation gang to get their diary on the recommended list.

        If you can't stand the heat, don't play with matches.

        by DawnG on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:48:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And Shoddy Diaries... (4.00 / 3)

      ...dilute the attention for good diaries, like the one you wrote this morning.  

      Not every diary can or should be expected to be a gem.  But neither should they be embarassing.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:49:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Grateful (none / 1)

        I'm just grateful it was read at all.

        Welcome to the Great Foreclosure.

        by bink on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for pointing that one out (4.00 / 3)

        DHinMI.  i totally missed it.  good stuff there bink.

        by juls on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:03:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  true but... (4.00 / 3)

        ...that's what recommended diaries were for.  To separate the quality from the garbage.  But I was getting surprised at some of the crap that was making the recommended list.  the "Dear lord smite these motherfuckers" being a prime example.

        Hopefully this will reduce those instances.

        If you can't stand the heat, don't play with matches.

        by DawnG on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:43:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the problem is (none / 0)

          that too many vacuous diaries make it a lot harder for the good ones to get recommends.  Who wants to sift through a ton of chaff for a pound of wheat?

          just really tired of all the bullshit.

          by bitterguy on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:11:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  some people do. (none / 0)

            and if people don't then they don't get recommended.  The problem we have is people getting gangs to recommend honestly crappy diaries.  But since I haven't recommended the diary (because it's crap) I can't unrecommend it.  How would the dynamic change if people could have a negative impact on the recommendation rating of a diary they feel doesn't belong on the recommended list?  

            But some people do go through a lot of diaries and you can usually tell by the first paragraph or 2 if it's any good without reading the whole thing.

            If you can't stand the heat, don't play with matches.

            by DawnG on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:43:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In an undisclosed location (4.00 / 2)

        long ago

        I sat in an airy room

        with a fully armed marine blocking the door handle

        across the table from a man in a suit

        who explained to me why I should sign some blurry papers

        laying out the penalties for disclosing state secrets

        as if the use of advanced intelligence technologies to manipulate national domestic elections were essential to warding off The Enemy.

        Bad judgment on their part, thinking I was one of them,

        but it was the sedative tradition of  self-aggrandizing denial that the Church committee then and you in particular push here now

        that keeps those who know from risking harms to their spheres of acquaintance

        so your spheres of acquaintance can proudly claim a higher order of rationality

        obeisance to the authorities who provide your imperceptibly shrinking political status

        a gift of corn from those who stole your land.

        -7.38, -9.23

        by macdust on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:03:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i was thinking about this (none / 0)

      and maybe a re-vamping of the TU system is in order - like, your ability to diary was based on a bizarre metriculation of your TU status, a writing sample and your geek quotient.  or something.

      and yes; i pray for the ability to unrecommend a diary without having to recommend it first.

      "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

      by Cedwyn on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 04:01:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yikes (4.00 / 5)

    I'm happy to see I'm still here.  

    I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein

    by elveta on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:47:44 AM PDT

  •  Sorry that it had to happen (4.00 / 8)

    but thanks for doing it. It was getting beyond the ability of rational people to squash.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

    by mcjoan on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

    •  At least the fraudniks... (