Skip to main content

    Previously, the great Kos himself did remark that a Diary is like entering someone's living room. If you don't have something worthwhile to say - then do not enter/just stay away. One should be looking to contribute or be enlightened. On this we should all concur.

Unfortunately, Net/web anonymity apparently grants license to the snide & rude.

     Recently, another Kossack, who is near and dear to me and full of good faith - Horace Boothroyd III (I call him Mr. III), did put for the apropos Diary about methods of Counter Intelligence Programs titled "If you want to remain blissfully naive do not read this post" In Mr. III's D he details the issues of COINTELPRO (short for counter intelligence program) methodology of parties (bad faith) seeking to shut down/silence a discussion - without exposing yourself for doing so.

       Mr. III does a thorough - intellectual - analysis of why we have pie fights within important posts, the ways of the subversives and the propaganda machinations thereof. There are 368 comments and 208 tips on Mr. III's D; and great discussions, banter and profound statements. I've re-read the entirety of them twice now.  Going forth as a student of the class, I now seek to expand on the discussion with the remark that it should be a Conduct Rule here at DK that;

                                  "Ad Hominem" attacks are verboten!

Personal Attacks are a Definitive NO NO here at DK

       Recently, some commentors' and I were in semi heated debate over the Trayvon Martin case and Marissa Alexander doing 20 years. Though there were only 4 primary parties in the discussion, the word "troll" was utilized a couple of times. I immediately asked them to cease/desist from the name calling.

       If you clicked on the link/word "Ad Hominem" above (or - HERE), you will see that Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines "ad hominem" as;

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
---------------- rather than by an answer to the contentions made


       The true history of the phrase is "argumentum ad hominem" and the Latin translates into the issue that it "is an argument against an opponent instead of against their subject of discussion" (same as the GOP saying they are going to NIX POTUS OBAMA - no matter what the program). It is what is also debated among legal scholars as an "informal fallacy" (being contrary via irrelevance).

Personal attacks serve NO good purpose here!

        Ad hominem was utilized throughout the ages as a bad faith way for men to effort to put (keep) women in their purported place. So much so there's also the phraseology of "Ad feminam". When I learned of this politically incorrect vernacular years ago, I stopped utilizing the point of contention "is it your time of the month".

Personal attacks serve no good purpose.

         As our wonderful Kos himself hath stated, when you enter a Diary, you are entering someone's house. Granted it is provided by Kos and his funding(ers); but that doesn't give any fellow Kossack the right to oppress. Be it newbies, old farts, hard heads, even venerates of this realm or hard liners.

       You are in full bad faith/bad form if you argue that the person was a Yankee fan, therefore he can't be subjective/objective about the Diary on the Dodgers or Angels. One's circumstance, whom they are and/or guilt by association should NOT apply here - because we profess to be Progressive -

We are suppose to be better than that!

Killing the discussion by incongruity is what Right Wing Nut Jobs Do!





Pyramid of Discussion:  Good Faith up top Bad Faith on bottom




      A debate on issues is either legitimate or it is not. Legal eagles will argue that nothing is black and white - including the colors black & white. Granted there is basis for the "grey" area contentions. However, be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains a comment person knows their intent, emotions, thoughts and so forth.

     Some people are good at conveying their thoughts to paper/ or computer keyboards and others are not. If you don't like what someone is saying - you may say so - but you should also stay in "good form" and detail the reasons why; instead of saying because you feel like it.

      As for me there are 5 levels of discussion/argument going from good to bad.

  1. Refuting on point (discloses all links to subject matter, refute explicitly)
  2. Identifying what one believes are mistakes in facts, substance or logic pathways
  3. Contradiction  (providing proof to the contrary)
  4. Tone of Contention/contrarian (responding with NO factual discussion)
  5. Ad Hominem attacks (attacking the person, character, or subject in bad faith)



       Mr. III is on the record saying it is extremely bad form for anyone to come in as the first commentor making argumentative remarks - it KILLS the conversation. On this I concur. That is why this Rule of Conduct is so important. Wikipedia points out that there is a "Halo effect". Whereas humans are guilty of cognitive bias. Such as treating attractive persons as being one's with more intelligence or honesty and/or the opposite - dumb blonde jokes. One of the greatest human weaknesses we have is that we presume other people to either be all good or all bad. Hence RWNJ saying Obama wasn't borne here and thus all his efforts as POTUS are bogus. Bull [c]hit - We are ALL human, subject to being good or bad - regardless of birthplace!

If you were borne in France that doesn't mean you are a Chef or that I can't cook.

       It is a simple matter of being a better realm of Daily Kos. I'm told by many that they left this realm because it is too frustrating. That is truly a shame. What good is it having over 1 million registered Kossacks; if only 10,000 come here anymore. (By the way, whose bright idea was it to make the web counts and stats of views invisible now)?

      As for me, I've been trying to arrest (that is HALT) a band of "Bankruptcy RING" fraudster attorneys who stole my life savings and my children's inheritance (and have done far - FAR - worse).  They perpetrate frauds without remorse or relent and my very own bad of bad faith parties are attacking me - defending the bad guys - calling me CT (without providing proof of their case), and/or also improperly calling for my banning.

These parties are defending Mitt Romney's crimes and call LaserHaas the bad guy!

                                                        GET REAL!

        You should not be allowed to call someone a troll, CT or RWNJ, unless you can prove your case. Otherwise, all you are really doing is what Horace Boothroyd III says your are doing. The RWNJ waying of destroying good faith debate through and "COINTELLPRO" playbook for killing discussion/ conversation.

At the end of the day, allowing the NIX of discussions

                                                 is a disease that will kill this realm!






This LINK is to a pyramid that details the top of legitimate argument;
then to the bottom of "ad hominem".

 

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Poll

Should there be a Code of Conduct here at DailyKos?

28%23 votes
20%16 votes
11%9 votes
40%32 votes

| 80 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Just don't ask for a dress code (7+ / 0-)

    If I have to wear a tie I'm outta here.

  •  Well, I tell ya. (13+ / 0-)

    If someone comes into one of my diaries and acts like or otherwise displas that they are a bigot, I shall feel free to point out that they are, in fact, bigots.

  •  As with the "fuck you" commenter (7+ / 0-)

    And upraters still having mojo, it isn't what you know on DK but who you know.

  •  Aren't there already muliple codes of conduct? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas

    Didn't Kos just lay out a new one a few weeks ago?  Although, come to think of it, it probably makes sense to have a single, easy to find one.

    We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

    by RageKage on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:09:12 PM PDT

    •  The RULE I'm asking for - is NO "ad hominem" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      attacks.

      You can't call someone names, say they are trolls, CT or NUTS

      without being able to make a rock solid case.


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:14:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mostly agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, susans, mahakali overdrive

        I just think that rule has always been there.  As far as I've always know, ad hominem has always been verboten and HR-able.

        The problem, I think, is that this has not been consistently enforced with ad-hominem attacks in the form of "troll" and accusations of mental illness. But it should be.

        Where I differ from you is whether CT is an ad-hominem attack.  I would agree that it is one of the lowest forms of argument - it is essentially just calling the opposing argument a name - but the name calling is still directed at the argument, and not the person making it.  It is like calling an argument a right-wing talking point.   Probably just as disruptive and useless as ad-hominem, but still distinct - and not banned.  

        We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

        by RageKage on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:39:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dude (6+ / 0-)

        1.  Saying a diary is CT is, by definition, not an ad hominem of any sort.

        2.  An argumentum ad hominem would be "laser haas is crazy as a fucking loon because all he posts are incomprehensible diaries that link Bain, Romney, and the Illuminati, so you shouldn't believe what he says."  Not that I would mean that;  it's just an example of an ad hominem.

        3.  Why does it seem like the crazies are most fervently trying to invoke the "don't be a dick" rule?  And by "crazies," I don't necessarily mean those who write diaries whining about how they've been subjected to ad hominem attacks when they haven't.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:34:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is "ad hominem" (DUD) - to say CT and fail (0+ / 0-)

          to back it up with anything geniune.

          It is a high jack of a D, to kill the discussion;
          and it is bad faith, bad form - pure and simple.


          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

          by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:51:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit (6+ / 0-)

            And you don't get to make your own definitions up.

            Got that?

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:55:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just because your a Laser hater and curse (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck

              doesn't make you correct.

              The definition is NOT made up.

              See it here on Wikipedia

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

              If you are arguing against the person - without substance - you ARE engaging in "ad hominem" attacks.


              Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

              by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:07:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll try to say this slowly for you (8+ / 0-)

                saying a diary is describing a conspiracy theory is an argument directed against the diary,  not the writer.

                No matter how many times you copy from Wikipedia, it will never be the case that calling a diary a conspiracy theory is an ad hominem.

                "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:11:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can banter B.S. as much as you wish (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ek hornbeck, kharma, TheMomCat

                  your arguments do not hold water.

                  As evident by the LINKS to prior comments from years back - the party called me nuts, begs for others to HR me - and seeks my banning.

                  That's not general statements - just FACTs of "ad hominem" attacks.

                  You are on the wrong side of this and blind to the truth.


                  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                  by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:16:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  See... (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    laserhaas, kharma, Victor Ward, TheMomCat

                    CT is bait and anyway it stands for "completely true".

                    The only reason people trot it out is to get you banned, because it is one of the bannable offenses.

                    Ignore those comments and the people who make them.

                    If Adam had any power at all you'd be gone already.

                    •  I wish you could be as good at explaining why (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ek hornbeck, TheMomCat

                      my blood boils - when they do that stuff

                      as your are at pointing out the futility of arguing with them.


                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:25:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Of course I can explain it. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        laserhaas, davespicer, kharma

                        They do it to make your blood boil and tempt you into fights.

                        It's classic trolling.

                        You must resist.  Yes, it sucks that the moderation is biased and arbitrary, but the reason to persist is to help those who follow.

                        There are those who claim I'm a "purist" and don't understand "compromise" and "incrementalism".

                        I live it every single day.

                        •  US AG Ashcroft "compromised" - with a $50 million (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ek hornbeck, kharma

                          NO Bid - Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) that was given to him by US Attorney from New Jersey (Chris Christie).

                          If Al Capone were to give the former USAG $50 mil

                          It would be a bribe.

                          ----------------------

                          When the great Christie arranges for it to USAG Ashcroft

                          It's a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.


                          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                          by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 11:58:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Amazing flexibility. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma, laserhaas

                            I like the double dog.

                            Double Dog

                            * Partner #1 gets into Down Dog position, while Partner #2 stands on the left side of Partner #1.
                            * Partner #2 places their hands about 8 to 12 inches in front of Partner #2's hands.
                            * Partner #2 lifts their right leg and places their foot directly below Partner #1's right hip bone. Then they bring their left foot up and place it below Partner #2's left hip, cupping each side of Partner #1's hips with their feet. Partner #2 is basically doing Down Dog on top of their partner. Hence the name - Double Dog.
                            * To dismount, Partner #2 slowly shifts their weight off and places one leg down to the ground, and then the other.
                            * Switch roles so you each get a turn to do both.

                        •  The bribe Romney's GANG offered me (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ek hornbeck, kharma

                          they called it a "recalculation" of the actual worth of assets in a BK estate.

                          If I'm willfully blind to what they are doing wrong - because of the estate being "overvalued"

                          a "recalculation" is in order.....


                          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                          by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:00:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  No. (3+ / 0-)

                      Whether or not I have such power, I don't know: I've never sought any user's banning based on my role behind-the-scenes here. I figure the HR process generally takes care of things well, over time.

                      And I'm disappointed by your other remarks here about me, and unsure of their genesis.  If you want to Kosmail me, feel free.

                      •  NO - what good would it do to argue with you (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheMomCat

                        behind closed doors.

                        Let's have an open debate.

                        Back to the very beginning. The one issue you keep jumping over. Are there erroneous affidavits in the court docket record in eToys

                        Yes or No?

                        Under Section 327(a) - that the parties who put forth those erroneous affidavits - INTENTIONALLY hiding their conflicts of interest - Does the Bankruptcy Code & Rules mandate their disqualification?

                        Yes or No?

                        Until you and your friends stop following with you and calling that sine qua non issues CT - all other banter is an exercise in futility.

                        You are defending the position of bad faith parties, who work for OUR enemy. Who have stolen from thousands of people as well as me too.

                        NO one has the right to assault a victim - in essence inferring one is not a victim - and expect that victim to take it on the chin over and over again.

                        You are a PRO - at taking the debate down a highway where logic doesn't matter.

                        If I were Paul Traub - trying to dodge my culpability, you would be a good candidate for the job as defense counsel.


                        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:00:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That wasn't directed at you, but ek. (3+ / 0-)

                          I'm not interested in discussing issues which you litigated back in 2005; I certainly don't see what they have to do with the diary you posted last night to which I responded.

                          •  What is being litigated now - what will be (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            litigated for years to come.

                            Of course your NOT interested.

                            Then please stay out of my D's and stop bringing along the same band of merry B's - with bad faith intents!


                            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                            by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:09:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't bring anyone. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            terrypinder, mahakali overdrive

                            And as everyone has acknowledged, both here and in that diary, my questions were factual, non-inflammatory, and completely focused on the diary which you posted.

                          •  Your questions are Disingenuous. Professional (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            Code of Conduct Rule 3.4

                            http://courts.delaware.gov/...

                            Rule 3.4. Fairness to opposing party and counsel  
                               A lawyer shall not:
                            (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or
                            other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;


                            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                            by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:37:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Adam B, a quick correction (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Adam B, terrypinder

                            You said, with emphasis added:

                            I'm not interested in discussing issues which you litigated back in 2005
                            Haas didn't litigate the issue.  His company, Collateral Logistics, Inc. filed a motion regarding the conflict, among other filings. Judge Walrath refused to consider it (and ordered CLI's pleadings in the matter stricken) because CLI was appearing without counsel, which a corporate entity may not do.  Judge Walrath pointed out at footnote 3 that refusing to consider the CLI motion
                            has not, however, diminished the issues addressed by the Court because Alber’s pleadings are substantially identical to CLI’s pleadings.
                            This may seem to be a minor point; it matters because it's at or near the beginning of Haas' story of a grand government conspiracy against him and part of the reason his diaries are so confounding.  

                            Haas, in his individual capacity, appealed to the District Court and, when it ruled against him, to the 3d Circuit.  His appeal was summarily dismissed:

                            Haas, who describes himself as president and sole shareholder of Collateral Logistics, Inc. ("CLI"), appeals pro se from the District Court's August 30, 2006 dismissal of his appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's October 4, 2005 order in the EToys, Inc. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court denied CLI's emergency motion to disqualify the unsecured creditor's counsel because CLI was not represented by an attorney as is required for corporations to appear in federal court. The District Court dismissed Haas's subsequent appeal after finding that he did not have standing to challenge the order denying CLI's motion. Because Haas's appeal to us presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

                            We are in complete agreement with the District Court's analysis and decision that Haas lacks standing to appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's order. Although the current Bankruptcy Code does not discuss appellate standing, we have recognized that standing is a prerequisite for appealing bankruptcy court orders. In re Dykes, 10 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 1993). In the bankruptcy context, standing is limited to "persons aggrieved" by an order of the bankruptcy court. Id. at 187-88. Individuals are "`persons aggrieved' if the order diminishes their property, increases their burdens, or impairs their rights." Id. at 188. This standard is more restrictive than the Article III standing requirements, as we require the appellant to be "directly affected" by the order. In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 391 F.3d 190, 215 (3d Cir. 2004). Whether a party is a sufficiently aggrieved is a factual matter subject to the District Court's determination. In re Dykes, 10 F.3d at 188. Thus, we review the determination for clear error. See In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 391 F.3d at 214 n.19.

                            As the District Court explained, Haas is not a "person aggrieved" by the Bankruptcy Court's order because the court denied CLI's, not Haas's, motion. CLI, a corporation, is a legal entity separate from its president and shareholder, and an individual shareholder such as Haas generally may not appeal a judgment against the corporation.

                            See In re Anchorage Nautical Tours, Inc., 145 B.R. 637, 641-42 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992) (following Kauffman v. Dreyfus Fund, Inc., 434 F.2d 727 (3d Cir. 1970), and Alaska law to hold that the sole shareholder and principal of a corporation had no standing to appeal an order against the corporation). As such, only CLI (through counsel) had standing to challenge the Bankruptcy Court's order. See Kauffman, 434 F.2d at 732 ("A stockholder . . . does not acquire standing . . . when the alleged injury is inflicted upon the corporation."). Haas's position as president and status as sole shareholder does not change the outcome. See In re Anchorage Nautical Tours, Inc., 145 B.R. at 641-42.

                            Nevertheless, Haas contends that he has suffered pecuniary damage and is thus a person aggrieved. According to the Bankruptcy Court's findings in its August 25, 2005 dismissal of CLI's claims, CLI was retained by the Bankruptcy Court to provide transportation and security services in connection with the liquidation of estate inventory.

                            The retention orders required CLI to file applications for payment of its fees and for reimbursement of its expenses. CLI, however, failed to file adequate fee applications and its claims were accordingly not paid. Thus, it appears that any adverse pecuniary effects that CLI (and indirectly, Haas) suffered stem from its failure to comply with the retention orders, not from the order of the Bankruptcy Court at issue, which merely denied CLI's motion to disqualify the unsecured creditor's counsel. CLI's grievances with its circumstances and Haas's grievances against nearly everyone associated with the EToys litigation do not confer standing on Haas.

                            Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's order.

                            Link.  I'd have to double check, but I'm fairly certain that Haas subsequently added the appellate judges to the list of agents conspiring against him.

                            As long as Haas is permitted to post here, readers deserve to have an explanation of what really happened, which Haas refuses to provide.  Please consider this comment as part of that explanation.

                      •  Let's - You and I - tangle, upon he merits (0+ / 0-)

                        one by one.

                        Or agree to stay our distance from one another.

                        Like "gentlemen" would do!

                        CHOOSE?


                        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:01:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Isn't this your diary (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laserhaas, Victor Ward, twigg

                wherein you argue against name calling and personal attacks?

                Just because your a Laser hater and curse (1+ / 0-)
                doesn't make you correct.
                Oh, right! You are only arguing against anyone calling you names and attacking you personally!
      •  It's possible to make a rock solid case (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, Victor Ward

        That someone is being a troll or conspiracy theorist without that person agreeing.

        You may think you are a crusader fighting the good fight when really you're just as stubborn as Orly Taitz.  Am I describing you or people who disagree with you (or both)?  Does it matter?

  •  'Who cares' is winning in the poll (6+ / 0-)

    though how people overcame their apathy to vote would amaze me if I gave a shit.

    There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

    by virginislandsguy on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:09:25 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for taking time to write this. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas, jamess

    A good horse is never a bad color.

    by CcVenussPromise on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:10:09 PM PDT

  •  I like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas, Shockwave

    The living room analogy.


    Rude or Mean people, need not enter.

  •  Er... (16+ / 0-)
    You should not be allowed to call someone a troll, CT or RWNJ, unless you can prove your case.
    Seriously?

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:21:22 PM PDT

  •  I hadn't seen the linked diary until now... (4+ / 0-)

    I have to say how disturbed I am that people evidently want to turn this place into an echo chamber and aren't afraid of using paranoid innuendo and smears to achieve that end.

     Fuck that shit.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 09:31:50 PM PDT

    •  It's pretty bad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma, laserhaas

      as an antiwar vet, to be called "baby-killer" by centrist Dems that never spent a day in uniform (didn't we used to call them chickenhawks?) because I oppose the rush to war in Syria, because I oppose bombing Syrian cities and killing babies...Well, I've gotten that line, in almost identical words (as in a prepared talking points sheet) from two different kossacks.  That's where we are now, antiwar vets are "baby killers" to the Democratic Party mainstream as represented here at dkos.

      Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

      by ActivistGuy on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 12:18:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It bugs me that the argument is to kill Syrians (0+ / 0-)

        to stop a Syrian - from killing Syrians.


        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:05:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't judge us all by the outliers, please. (0+ / 0-)

        Some of us try to push back hard against that shit, and get drowned out in the butthurt.

        If you ever see it on the front page, let me know and I'll lead the exodus, but I doubt it will happen.

        There are all shades of Democrats here. I disagree with a lot of them on some things, some of them on others. but it remains the best site for information and community.

        "Better Democrats" posting here will keep it that way.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:08:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Did I miss something? (3+ / 0-)

    Is there a day we don't have metta, I mean I am cool with that just wondered what was driving this...

    Sigh. I just wish hockey season would start already.

  •  Hey, you're back. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat

    Good for you.

    Unfortunate I must disagree.  People's personal motivations are directly applicable to the credibility of their arguments.

    If you have a history of advocating for a particular position how is that not relevant?

    Bad faith is a matter of opinion and I don't care about yours.  Call me what you like.

  •  Has anyone taken notice - that the parties finding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ek hornbeck

    fault with me - are almost always the same group - saying the same thing

    over and over again?

    Never doing so with any legitimate discussion.


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 10:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Let me just observe that some people are not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas

    capable of separating an issue from a person. They can say "nothing personal," but they cannot ignore the person, because the person is all they see. We might just as well expect a dog to meow.
    Or think of a frog sitting on the edge of a pond. It snaps at whatever enters its sightline at the right speed. Sometimes it ends up with a swallow that's too big to swallow; sometimes it ends up with another frog. That does not mean frogs are fratricidal. It means they are instinct-driven. Some humans are too. They cannot help what they do. Or, as it says in the New Testament, "they know not what they do."
    Not knowing does not preclude slyness and scheming. Is not the fox characterized as sly? Does not the killdeer pretend injury to deceive? Deception is a very primitive strategy. Even plants employ it. Evolution is incremental. There is no reason to think primitive behaviors are lost.
    Which is not to say primitive behaviors should be ignored or rewarded.
    On the other hand, financial thievery is something to be ambivalent about. It is pure thievery in the sense that what is stolen is of no practical use and, therefor, insulting. So, even though the money can be recouped or compensated from some other source, the insult will remain, unless it is refused.
    Has Laserhaas suffered loss as a result of theft, or because he became obsessed by the need to exact revenge on behalf of someone else?

    Btw, it occurred to me just today that the middlemen are what we might call "opportunistic predators," as opposed to those that go on the hunt or stalk their prey. The opportunistic ones lurk and wait until lady fortune sends dinner their way. That may account for why they do not perceive themselves as "takers." Imagine them as highwaymen of old, intercepting travelers to exact a toll. That they did not build the road does not occur to them.

    •  It is not just moi that suffered loss due to grand (0+ / 0-)

      larceny. That is too simplistic.

      Of course, I want back what they stole; but it is the greater evils at play that I'm trying to shine the light upon.

      The Learning Company $3 Billion (most have NO idea it was Romney and gang who caused the loss -- and wound up with 12 million shares of Mattel in 1999) - Then Bain buys Kay Bee for $38 million down. CEO of Kay Bee pays himself $18 million bribe and Bain $83 million; before filing bankruptcy of Kay Bee.

      If you or I took out the money of our house worth and then filed bankruptcy and kept the money. Your or I would get 20 years for Bankruptcy Fraud.

      Stage Stores was funded by Michael Milken jund bond fraud money. The reason why Romney was allowed to use the junk bonds money - is because the judge's wife owned shares in the company profiting from the schemes.

      Then all those same players decide to destroy the public company of eToys by lying under oath to get inside the vault. When, as manager, I point out they are stealing. The Police and Judge remove me and hand the bank robber the keys to the vault they are fleecing.

      All because one partner of the fraudsters law firm - was made to become the Delaware United States Attorney on August 2, 2001. Who then refused to investigate and/or prosecute his partners and their clients/friends for 7 years.

      All facts documented by public docket records.

      And that same federal prosecutor was a partner in the law firm from 1999 to August 2001.

      The BOSS lied on his federal campaign finance form to the entire country to hide these glaring facts - saying he "retroactively" resigned from Aug 2001, back to Feb 1999.

      Which is the SAME exact period of time that all of these organized crimes began.

      I'm a victim - who just keeps pointing out the facts - and Obama's Of_A Illinois Campaign site is following me on Twitter

      But venerates of this realm are calling me CT - to kill the conversation - and say those facts are just things I made up.



      The whole point of this D - is one (especially a venerate leader of the realm) - should NOT be able to troll with his gang after a Diarist, and sling words that kill discussions (such as CT always NIX's the discussion)

      Unless that person can prove to a jury of random parties

      that one is truly CT.


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:21:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's Yankees fan can't be objective about Red Sox! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas

    Tsk, tsk, the common analogy is that's like saying a Yankee fan can be objective about the BoSox or the reverse works even better.

    But seriously, the net is filled with folks who can't engage in civil debate so they resort to personal attacks to score points. Sadly, that's a reflection of real life behavior.

  •  I think ad hominem attacks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, laserhaas, grover

    should be allowed in special circumstances, like, if they're really funny and the person so targeted is a particular douche.  We might call this the douchebag exception.

    •  LOL - now that's funny (except to those who (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo

      take offense at dochebaggie remarks)

      BTW - I'm a lot naive.

      If the dousing comes from a bottle spraying - where does the "bag" (collecting such) arise from?

      I'm just sayin.....


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:23:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think the humor exception (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo

      is always in place. It's a dangerous exception to invoke though because if you HAVE to tell others you're invoking  it, (telling people something was a joke or that it was intended to be funny) then you failed.

      In failing, of course, you don't get to claim the exception and standard community consequences apply; plus the "lame joke penalty" is assessed as well.

      So you better be sure you're really funny or don't bother...

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If ad hominems (6+ / 0-)

    are HR'able, should we go and HR your ad hominem attack on Adam in your last diary?
    Here's is Adam's question, which seems perfectly legitimate:

    So we're clear. (10+ / 0-)
    They're not objecting to the settlement; they just want it to be public?  What is the substance of the Trustee's objection, and has it been publicly filed yet?
    And here is your reply:
    To be clear, you are an Attorney at Law (0+ / 7-)
    who has circled your wagon around protecting the "good ole boys" network in this case - who are engaging in bad faith.

    At the same time, you and your ilk have attacked a victim of organized crime. You defend their lying under oath and grand larceny - as if it really is no big deal.

    Which does not bode well for your claim to be Progressive.

    Until you capitulate to the cold, hard, undeniable FACT that both the MNAT and (the many) Paul Traub law firms have already confessed lying under oath to a chief federal justice (where Martha Stewart went to prison for far, FAR less of an offense).

    Than all that you say and do SIR - ain't work bupkis!

    I bolded the ad hominem attack for clarity.

    Where is your proof that Adam is defending lying under oath  and grand larceny?
    And here is a quote from your present diary;

    You are in full bad faith/bad form if you argue that the person was a Yankee fan, therefore he can't be subjective/objective about the Diary on the Dodgers or Angels. One's circumstance, whom they are and/or guilt by association should NOT apply here - because we profess to be Progressive -

    We are suppose to be better than that!

    One's circumstance, who they are?
    To be clear, you are an Attorney at Law
    Guilt by association?
    At the same time, you and your ilk have attacked a victim of organized crime.
    Ad hominem?
    You defend their lying under oath and grand larceny - as if it really is no big deal.
    Stand down off the cross, laserhaas.

    Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

    by skohayes on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 03:55:06 AM PDT

    •  Again - ye too - take today and ignore the yore (0+ / 0-)

      Go back to the D and look at the history of the B, calling me CT years ago, calling for HR'ing and banning.

      With the same banter as always. An attorney engaging in false logic questions, innuendo and assaults

      for the sake of protecting our enemies bad faith acts.

      That is what is sick about this whole thing. He even argued that Romney was not at Bain in 2001. When Obama's campaign and others verified my allegations and broadcast such. He just marched onto a new plane of attacks

      Protecting Organized Criminal Romney & Gang

      and assaulting a victim.

      While you act as if that stuff doesn't matter.


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:27:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Try looking it up (5+ / 0-)

    An ad hominem attack is saying someone's argument is wrong because they are a bad person (see link for elaboration). An ad hominem attack is not merely an insult.

    "You're a fucking troglodyte teabagger" is a personal insult.

    "You're wrong because you're a fucking troglodyte teabagger" is an ad hominem attack. It says the argument is at fault because of the character of the person making it, not because of a substantive flaw in the argument itself.

    If you think of a term like "ad hominem" or "straw man" and cannot write down an accurate definition, then you don't know what the term means and you probably should not use it.

    •  You forgot to mention one thing: (3+ / 0-)

      Regardless of the merits, writing "Your argument is CT" is neither an ad hominem nor a personal attack.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:22:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure on that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas

        Saying (in effect) "you are a concern troll, therefore your argument is irrelevant" is an ad hominem. If their argument is irrelevant, it is irrelevant based on its content, not the obnoxiousness of its poster. Who may very well be a concern troll, but that does not automatically disqualify their statement.

      •  False remark 1000% - Graham's Pyramid (0+ / 0-)

        and Dictionary's define "ad hominem" attacks

        as Attack of the person

        while failing to address the issues

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...


        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:31:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Saying an argument is conspiracy theory... (5+ / 0-)

          ...is not an attack on the person. It is an attack on the argument. You can tell it's an attack on the argument because the argument would remain conspiracy theory no matter who espoused it.

          It doesn't matter who is saying that aliens have taken over the bodies of all the major world leaders and are getting us ready for an alien invasion; its status as conspiracy theory is completely disconnected from the person making the argument.

          Additionally, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, charging that an argument is insufficiently-supported conspiracy theory does not require the person making the charge to disprove the theory, simply to point out where the lack of substantiation for the claims exists.

          To suggest that any argument that cannot be disproven must necessarily be true is the argumentam ad ignorantiam. It is the responsibility of the person making a claim to support that claim with sufficient evidence and reason.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:42:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Saying it is CT - without proof - is KILLER (0+ / 0-)

            of conversation.

            The whole reason we all write D's is to make a point and/or engage in banter upon the point.

            Calling out CT - without documentation it is CT

            IS BOGUS banter, in extreme bad faith and extreme bad form


            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

            by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:46:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The standard in argumentation... (4+ / 0-)

              ...is that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support that claim with evidence and reason. CT is, at its heart, a failure on the part of the claimant to do so, in making claims that either are not or cannot be supported by evidence and reason.

              That's why the standard here for CT has always been "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to claim that aliens are impersonating all of our world leaders, then it's your job to provide some rather extraordinary evidence to that effect. It is not the responsibility of those who are arguing that aliens aren't impersonating all of our world leaders to prove that they're not.

              To make the charge that an argument is CT does not require proof on the part of the person making the charge that the argument in question is untrue; the burden of proof is on the person making the argument to support their claim, not on the interlocutor to disprove it. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:53:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  BS - BIG Bull - you/yours make a claim of CT (0+ / 0-)

                as in court, the allegations in a complaint ("moi") is assumed to be true - until PROOF is proffered to the contray.

                You can NOT go to court on a case - and shove a prosecutors case out the window -

                by simply saying its CT.

                U R 100% full of bull that you can make an assault out of thin blue air - without providing proof your assault has merits.

                BOGUS logic - Inane!


                Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:13:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is patently false. (2+ / 0-)

                  Under Twombly/Iqbal, the allegations must meet a base level of facial plausibility to get through the front door, and obviously at the end of the day the plaintiff must prove his case with evidence, not allegations.

                  •  That is trial upon the merits. What you are NOT (0+ / 0-)

                    willing to do.

                    You consistently babble that you have disproved the allegations - as if your remarks are true.

                    Professional Code of Conduct Rule 3.3

                    http://courts.delaware.gov/...

                    Candor toward the tribunal

                    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
                    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer


                    You have made many false statements and when you get caught, you ignore the fact and move on to your next disingenuous banter /babble.


                    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                    by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:40:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess that is what is meant (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Adam B

                    by prima facia.

                    "On the face of it" there should be an arguable case to answer or "at first sight".

                    ... or, in a criminal sphere ... at least "probable cause".

                    In other words, a set of unsupported assertions just isn't enough.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    Who is twigg?

                    by twigg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again - your inference is disingenuous. There's (0+ / 0-)

                      NO set of unsupported assertions here.

                      They have already admitted their Affidavits had misleading information.

                      They are FALSE.

                      It is also confessed it was intentionally left to stand before the court - to mislead - even after they were aware they could get caught by the Bonus Sales case.

                      See United States Trustee (the POLICE of the bankruptcy court system) - remarks in part 18 of the Motion to Disgorge Traub Bonacquist & Fox ("TBF") for $1.6 million - of February 15, 2005.

                      http://petters-fraud.com/...

                      Part 18 is the Fed Police (US Trustee) states that;

                      TBF
                      further asserts that although Traub and Fox considered amending their disclosures in 2003 (as a
                      result of their July 2003 disclosure of the relationship between TBF and ADA in the Bonus
                      Stores case, No. 03-12284 (MFW), they determined that it was not necessary to do so because
                      the eToys plan had already been confirmed and gone effective.  Id. at ¶ 3

                      Traub knew they could get caught for the lie because of the affidavit (Smoking Gun evidence) in the Bonus Sales case.

                      But they decided to let the lie stand before the court; because the case was over (in 2003 - and here we are with the case still open in 2013).

                      They deliberately lied to a Chief Federal Justice and that's Fraud upon the court (which the U.S. Trustee concluded had transpired as is iterated in part 35)

                      Part 35 states;

                      Unlike R&R Associates, this case does not involve novice bankruptcy counsel
                      who borrowed a form of Rule 2014 affidavit from another attorney in the firm.  It instead
                      involves experienced bankruptcy practitioners who have filed applications to be retained as
                      Section 327 or Section 1103 counsel in numerous large and sophisticated Chapter 11 cases, both
                      in Delaware and elsewhere. TBF’s partners are well-versed in the comprehensive and ongoing
                      relationships analysis required of a professional employed at estate expense.  And as discussed
                      earlier in this Motion, TBF had engaged in discussions with the Office of the United States
                      Trustee about replacement officers of the debtors, and was aware of the UST’s concern that the
                      replacement officers not be related to any of the professionals employed in the case.  This, it is
                      respectfully submitted, is all of the intent needed to demonstrate that TBF’s Rule 2014 disclosure
                      violation was a fraud upon the court.

                      Fraud on the court by an officer of the court - is such a heinous & egregious violation of the integrity of the judicial process

                      That there's NO statute of limitations when it occurs!


                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong, as a matter of law (3+ / 0-)

                  Allegations in a complaint are assumed to be true when a dispository motion, such as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, is filed.  Such motions come before an answer in which allegations are denied or admitted to.

                  At all events, the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.  In this case, to continue your analogy, that would be you.

                •  I'm not talking about court. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Adam B, VetGrl, pico

                  I'm talking about argumentation theory—the very same philosophical discipline to which you appeal in your citation of Graham's Pyramid.

                  (The lawyers here are doing a pretty good job taking apart your arguments about truth claims in the legal system.)

                  In argumentation theory, it is not the case that a claim is assumed to be true until disproven; rather, the claim is assumed to be untrue until it is sufficiently supported. The burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim; only after they have provided sufficient evidence and reason to support their claim does there exist a burden of rejoinder on their interlocutor.

                  In the case of CT, those who do not provide extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims have not fulfilled the burden of proof; thus, their interlocutors do not need to marshal evidence and reason as disproof. They simply need to point out where the initial argument lacks sufficient support.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Nope - You LOOK UP - to the Graham's Pyramid (0+ / 0-)

      "ad hominem" attacks are those that Attack the person - while failing (in this case miserably failing) to address the merits of the debate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:30:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More or less (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, mahakali overdrive

        The argumentum ad hominem is a deflection, attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. However, the intent is to discredit the argument through that attack.

        If your intent was solely to deflect away from the merits of their argument, you could do that just as easily by complementing them. If someone made an argument and I responded with:

        "I think conspiracy theorists are an unjustly maligned group who do a great service to society."

        Then I have not answered the argument, which is simple deflection, but I have not tried to weaken their argument, either. We would not call that simple deflection an ad hominem attack. If I said:

        "Conspiracy theorists are nuts, so what did you expect?"

        The attack on the character of the person is clearly meant to be an attack on the quality of their argument without ever addressing its substance. That would be an ad hominem attack ("you are nuts, and this implies your argument is false even if I do not explicitly mention your argument").

  •  the handholding some of you need (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas, Catesby

    is spectacular.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

    by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 04:40:29 AM PDT

  •  and now that I've gone back and read (7+ / 0-)

    the diary and thread that sparked this childish little exercise I really have to wonder why you can't answer a simple yes/no question.

    I mean really. I'll highlight. The simple and reasonable things you were asked to answer are in bold:

    So we're clear. (10+ / 0-)
    They're not objecting to the settlement; they just want it to be public?
     (this is a very, very simple yes/no question. Yes, they want it to be public. No, they don't want it to be public.)

    What is the substance of the Trustee's objection, and has it been publicly filed yet?
    (this is a reasonable question and would help the narrative in that diary)

    This should not be difficult. If you can't answer the question, there's no need to throw a tantrum because you were questioned.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

    by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 05:30:15 AM PDT

    •  You are arguing falsely. The party may start (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Old Left Good Left

      off WAY down the false logic tree.

      But I'm not allowed to ask him to correct the error; before another (newbie btw) jumps in and just plants the word CT in the thread - nixing the conversation.

      And - OVER & OVER again - I said to he & his GANG

      If you will simply admit that those who stole my life savings and company - lied under oath to a chief federal justice

      then I'll answer questions.

      Not one of the GANG - answered that simple premise - the top of the logic tree.

      If they are calling me CT when I post a NEWS article from main stream as the source

      all banter after that is RWNJ efforts to ignore the facts and destroy the conversation.

      ------------------------------------

      If the roles were reversed and I went to ANY of their D's and popped in with the words CT - or called one of them nuts - or called for people to HR the party much - so that they could be banned.

      I would have been slaughtered by now.....

      All of this double standard - permitting a person campaign by a Leader of the realm - to seek and destroy

      is Extreme Bad Faith!


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:39:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  irrelevant. (3+ / 0-)

        those things you allege happened after the questions were asked. Adam's question is one of the first comments on that thread after your tip jar. Them admitting someone lied is not relevant to your answering a simple series of questions, and it is not "threadjacking" to ask a bloody question.

        i'm not arguing at all. I am simply curious as to why two very reasonable and simple questions caused a multi-day tantrum. I am sorry you lost your livelihood to a bunch of lying motherfuckers but you could still answer the questions without screaming that everyone who asks you a simple question is:

        1. engaging in ad-hominum (nope)
        2. threadjacking (the only "threadjacking" was caused by you, screaming)
        3. distracting (you distracted your own diary)

        let's play another game. Imagine you were asked those two questions while on the stand. You are a lawyer, yes? Tell me what would happen if you went into the tirade that you did at Adam?

        Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

        by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:08:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He alway's asks questions appearing to be (0+ / 0-)

          "clarifying".

          So Let's "B" clear.

          He is an "Attorney at Law"

          defending the culprits in the eToys case

          and attacking the victim.

          -----------------------------------------------------------

          You want a victim of the grand larceny robbery, being abused by federal corruption massive

          to engage in banter upon false logic

          because the crook went down the illogical highway

          and asks - So let's be clear, the sun is not shining on your case, it is shining on everyone - and your trying to make it about your case.

          B.S. banter - that has nothing to do with the fact that the title of the D in question.

          U.S. objects to secret settlement in eToys bankruptcy
          Then a KNOWN - "Laser hater" comes along and asks the VICTIM - seeking to poke holes in the victims bleeding wounds.

          And you expect the victim to keep taking that BS

          with a crap eating grin.

          You are joining the gang -  assaulting a victim - and (in essence) defending Mitt Romney.

          How does that make you feel about yourself?


          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

          by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:20:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i'm bored today, so i'll play your game (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laserhaas, VetGrl, pico

            for awhile.

            1. Your narrative was not clear. A clarifying question is reasonable. I would have asked the same, and I'm NOT a lawyer. People who came to that diary may not have known what was going on. You certainly didn't help out in your own comment thread.

            But write whatever you want here or elsewhere.

            (Asking someone a question is not a defense of the culprits but whatever.)

            2. yes, I'd love to know the answer to those reasonable questions. Sorry you think it's BS but the previous diary was so confusing I really had no idea what was going on, and yes, since it was your diary, you do have a small obligation to help out where things are not clear. Instead you threw a tantrum and then wrote this meta-diary in an attempt to get sympathy for a comment-thread situation that was of your own making, because you think Adam has a personal vendetta for you and sits in his office looking for ways to ruin your life. Oh honey, no.

            3.  there's no gang ganging up on you and making you a victim here. What's with a few progressives lately? You ask some people here a simple question and they melt entirely the fuck down. Anyway, other than bored, I feel pretty great today.

            4.  I hope Markos ignores this code of conduct rule no 1, considering we already have the "Don't Be a Dick" rule. We're adults here, and we really don't need anymore handholding from the management.

            Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

            by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:58:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't be a dick rule is not applied - equally. (0+ / 0-)

              The issue is "ad hominem" attacks upon any D, calling it CT, nuts, or such - without backing up the allegations

              should be against the rules


              Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

              by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:22:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, i don't think it should be. let's move on. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laserhaas

                Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

                by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:30:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can move to where you wish (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not going anywhere..


                  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                  by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's fine. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VetGrl, Adam B

                    but "ad hominems" won't ever be banned in the sense that you want them all because you couldn't answer a simple series of questions.

                    I actually did make an attempt. While we were going back and forth, I quickly read through about a year's worth of your work here at Daily Kos. I still really have no idea what is going on with etoys and its bankruptcy having read your diaries and honestly Mitt Romney is a non-issue for me now. but there's a pattern in the comments threads of many of them: people show up confused, ask questions, you attack them, and then accuse them of being a gang of stalkers. Worse is when freak out when others try to fill the gaping holes in your own narrative because you're unwilling to do it. If this is how you behaved in court, well, no wonder you lost.

                    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

                    by terrypinder on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Dude (0+ / 0-)

        Calling everyone who questioned the content of your inane diary a "RWNJ" is over the line.

        Enough of the kid gloves treatment:  you are a raving lunatic espousing a conspiracy theory, and you ought to be banned because of it.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I find it telltale that the POLL "who cares" (0+ / 0-)

    is getting the most votes.

    That it is 41 to 18 - desire of good faith behavior.

    Sad state of affairs!


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:50:03 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site