what is nervous nellie on?

[Kali]

too much coffee???

oh sorry, the long haired white woman on panel at the Brown-Jackson hearing

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017723539

[blogslug]

1. lol which one?

[Kali]

4. see edit

[CurtEastPoint]

2. context please

[Kali]

6. see edit

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. You are so cool and we who have no idea what the . you are talking about are not cool at all. . nt

[Kali]

5. sorry sorry I edited

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. We are not cool enough to be glued to the hearings. Still no idea what the . you are on about

Your link to generic live hearings does not explain whatever you are on.

[nolabear]

9. There are considerably less antagonistic ways to ask for clarification.

I understand wanting more info but when you come in like that what’s up front is the snark, not the question.

They’re referring to a woman who’s one of the witnesses being questioned in the Judge Brown Jackson hearing. She’s involved with an organization that has something to do with child pornography. It’s called Underground Railroad but it’s not clear if they have one of those. She was flogging the idea that having computer images should be punishable by death. Well, not quite that but she was more emphatic than rationally understandable.

That help?

[The Magistrate]

12. Those 'U-G' People Are Seriously Hincky, Sir

No one from that bunch should be testifying anywhere save a court of law, and anyone who takes them as authoritative is either ignorant or demented or simply malicious.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Yes,helps, thanks. So, RW tropes they distract their base with regardless of truth or relevance. Thx

As to snark, it is a kind of snark when OPs write as if everyone is watching what they are watching while they are watching and thinking about the same aspect as the aspect they are thinking about. It is an assumption that is all about the Original Poster and doesn't think one second about the reader. That is kind of an affront to the reader as the writer is writing for themselves and not for the reader.

Complete with clickbait title that the poster never delivers on. The fact that it happens many times a day doesn't excuse it.

So yes, snark, to shame such thoughtless writers. Instead of shouting at the TV, they blurt out something on DU and stick an attractive title on it. They deserve some antagonism for jerking DU readers around like that.

[Torchlight]

17. I tell myself what people deserve too

It's usually a few miles of difference from what they've earned though, so I tend to keep it to myself and avoid advertising myself in such a negative method.

[nolabear]

21. I think we have varied reasons for being here. Some see DU as a conversation

and post to reach out for a conversational response from those also watching and so in the know. Some look for detail and news. I figure we all have to choose our paths and either ignore or participate according to our interests.

I often think we’d be well off to have dedicated threads for that conversational mode when something is going on but I’m not dedicated enough to start them. I just jump on and off as inspired.

Btw turns out Nervous Nellie is a former sex crimes prosecutor.

[Kali]

10. I guess if you aren't glued you can just skip the thread, clearly you are cool enough to

be on line reading threads. I agree posts like my original are annoying but to be fair the hearings are kind of a big deal and I expect a lot of DUers are paying attention.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Victim blaming. You wrote the clickbait title and never delivered

Paraphrased, it is as if you said or thought "Oh silly you. I sucked you in. Ha ha! You should know when titles are clickbait just by reading the title." As if, mind you. Not saying you thought that, but that is the kind of feeling the victim being blamed is left with.

How is the reader supposed to ESP from the title that it is about a hearing they are not watching?

The reader can't. But the writer can make ESP unnecessary. If they care.

[Kali]

20. in general I agree with your point

and sometimes I even agree with your approach to call it out. however I did clarify and now feel you are just being an asshole.

have a nice day!

[demmiblue]

24. !

[ChazII]

8. Watching C-Span

not PBS. I will watch for her.

[Kali]

11. I keep missing her name

edit, oops got that part wrong she is a professor of some sort

her opening statement was full of a LOT of body movement, nervous hand gestures and she was talking super fast. nervous or hyper caffeinated?

[The Magistrate]

15. They Work a 'Rescue Scam', Ma'am

Costly, though how it is spent is unclear. Not a lot really happens, and much of what does verges on kidnapping.

[Kali]

18. I think that is the one testifiying remote

got them mixed up and edited post above

[blogslug]

14. Here are the GOP witnesses

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall
George Mason University assistant law professor Jennifer Mascott
anti-choice activist Eleanor McCullen
Keisha Russell of First Liberty
QAnon-adjacent Alessandra Serano from Operation Underground Railroad.

[Kali]

19. Mascott was the one I was commenting about in the OP

[maxrandb]

22. She breaks out in hives whenever she gets near Ted Cruz?

It's either that, or crack induced hemorrhoids. She was fidgeting and twitching like Lindsey Graham at Boy's School.

[maxrandb]

23. I also loved the "sidewalk counselor".

That's what the Retrumplicans call the insurrectionist.