Can someone tell me the saga of the poster known as "Better Believe It"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I read that he was a right wing troll who was masquerading as a progressive, was exposed, and consequently banned.


When did he out himself ?

[randome]

1. Long time troll, stayed on the fence as much as possible, but finally went too far.

As they all do. And was extirpated by the admins.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I wonder how I missed that./NT

[randome]

3. I lose track of time. Was it 2 years ago? 3? Maybe you were on hiatus from DU then?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. As you can see I have a ton of posts but they come in bunches

The latest Clinton kerfuffle and the concomitant attacks from all quarters has woken me up.

[randome]

8. Or maybe YOU are Better Believe It come back from the grave!

Curious how we never saw posts from you and BBI at the same time. Makes me wonder...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I don't remember him all that much or at all...He's green* . I'm blue,

*pretends to be green

[pintobean]

13. +1

Especially the part about quite popular colleagues.

[msanthrope]

17. Looks like some of the colleagues got upset. Thin-skinned lot, eh? nt

[pintobean]

22. Jury decisions never surprise me any more

They're often shameful, though.
Thanks for the reply; I probably would have missed that.

[msanthrope]

29. Note the alerter used the same message that Skinner used to shitcan

BBI...see below thread....

[pintobean]

31. Yeah, that is weird. /nt

[marym625]

26. Here are the jury results

I was juror #4


AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Unfortunately his colleagues remain behind on DU posting RW links/memes, trying to divide Democrats,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6347875

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Enough is enough.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 11, 2015, 10:12 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Enough is enough isn't an argument for a hide. I'm not in agreement with the poster and think paranoia strikes deep to the point that disagreement and differences are enmity in their eyes but there is nothing personal in the post and no rationale of note from the alerter.
TheKentuckian
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As long as names are not being called out, I don't see the problem. We have people being disrespected left and right for their beliefs without hides. Certainly not going to vote to hide this. 
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough. There are many, valid viewpoints in the DEMOCRATIC, not DICTATOR Party.

[msanthrope]

27. That alerter openly mocked Skinner.....that alert message is exactly

what he wrote when he shitcanned BBI......

I wonder if the Hide jurors knew.

[marym625]

33. I don't know

But I do know that people are accused of alerting and/or voting to hide based on the beliefs or side they are perceived to be on. It just isn't the reality.

[pintobean]

43. That is a reality.

Not all alerters and not all jurors, but it most definitely happens with some of both.

[marym625]

35. I don't know if that was meant to mock.

Regardless, if it's not a personal attack with names or very obvious inference, I won't hide.

[Agschmid]

39. Mocked... or *was*...

We will never know.

[stevenleser]

45. Yeah, I didn't want to say it. Some folks are clearly looking for a reason to alert...

but I was thinking the same thing.

[stevenleser]

40. Yes, admins should look into that alerter. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

104. That's kind of creepy, stevenleser.

By all means, let's have an investigation because some made an alert you didn't like.

[stevenleser]

117. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Creepy<>"That sounds like a troll"

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Alerts and jury decisions are anonymous to us, but not to them.

I think some people sometimes forget that.

[Rex]

148. LOL!

Rah ROH!

[one_voice]

53. Wonder if the alerter knows Skinner/admin

sees all the alerts/jury results.

[joshcryer]

118. Definitely a troll alert.

Must have made their day when the jury fell for it.

[Sheepshank]

41. the "hide" on the post is as stupid as it gets lately

[Number23]

153. Exactly. That post was not even close to personal attack. But obviously some hit dogs hollered

anyway.

This place has somehow gotten even more ridiculous lately.

[Number23]

150. The Protectorate!!! Oh God, the PROTECTORATE!!!!

[RufusTFirefly]

94. Interesting. So posting something from Matt Rothschild and the Progressive makes you a RW troll??

I'm feeling dizzy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002451396

[SidDithers]

113. No, posting something from The Weekly Standard, Avik Roy and Tim Carney make you a RW troll...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=677848

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002514451

Sid

[stevenleser]

123. And to add to the other reply to you, completely mischaracterizing what the President said in order

to attack him, makes you a troll.

[RufusTFirefly]

124. Haha. And a flack is just a troll with a pay stub. n/t

[stevenleser]

126. Could be. nt

[Arkana]

5. Seriously? So that so-called "true progressive" self-righteous pisswipe

was a troll all along?

I fucking KNEW it. The number of times he put me down for daring to support Democrats for straying outside of Green Party orthodoxy...

[geek tragedy]

7. Purity troll who would cite The Weekly Standard to

attack Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. My "favorite" was Seventh Son who said the CIA gave Jamaican men man boobs.

He flamed out in a spectacular way on Election Eve 2004 when he started to PM DU gay members wishing they get HIV.

[ellie]

54. YES! He was my favorite too!

He did flame out spectacularly.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

168. well. I sure missed the festivities!

Why do I always miss the good stuff? Want some moments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

173. He flamed out four years before you arrived./NT

[BlancheSplanchnik]

174. I was on earlier...

Used to be FizzFuzz.

Dat a long time ago. Before the meds.

[mmonk]

21. Talk about a dead giveaway.

[madokie]

9. We still have quiet a few right wing trolls here IMO

and I'm sure they'll be outed sooner or later but the damage some can do in the mean time is terrible. We've lost good solid Democratic members because of some of them too. I trust the system here to take care of things though. I use the ignore function as I find them myself. From time to time I'll clean out my ignore list in case I've made a mistake or whatever but for the most part I know the smell of shit real well so I've not made many mistakes on that front though.

I have a neighbor who claims to be a democrat but I know thats not true by what he talks about and what he sends me, no matter what he prefaces some of it with trying to throw me off. neighbor so gotta live with so I hold my nose and prod on.

[msanthrope]

11. He was a ratfucking troll(s) who posted more and more far out pieces

until it finally got him shitcanned.

Since then, I and a few other posters routinely write "You Better Believe It" when we see a like thread.

Here's a fun game.....if you look at BBIs last thread.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002677848#post18

Read for Sid's excellent links to some of the worst threads......

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I think I remember him

As I said I post in bunches when certain issues pique my interest...The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was one of them. He was the clown that said it really wasn't really repealed because it would take some time for it to be implemented.

[msanthrope]

15. Here is Skinner, in prime form.....but the whole thread,

..is priceless....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002451396

Skinner took out the trash....

[stevenleser]

23. A glance at who rec'ed that piece is... interesting. nt

[Octafish]

32. Yeah. Because I'm against wars without end for profits without cease.

Aren't you?

[stevenleser]

36. No, you rec'ed a crazy attack on the President that even had Skinner, who stays out of

most arguments, commenting as nicely as he could put it that the article doesn't say what BBI suggested that it said.

And, that OP among others finally led Skinner to say "Enough is enough" and tombstone BBI.

But you recommended it.

[Octafish]

48. What's crazy is supporting wars without end for profits without cease.

If you can't see that, you've got a problem.

[stevenleser]

49. All the good intentions in the world are no reason to recommend a crazy and dishonest OP.

And you are doubling down on that recommendation here.

I love puppies and kittens too. And that is no reason to recommend a crazy and dishonest OP.

[Octafish]

57. Doubling down to you?

Who cares?

[stevenleser]

61. Nope, this is a forum. Everyone can see it. It's not a private discussion between you and I.

I don't care what you think either.

[Octafish]

69. Which is what makes it interesting.

Do your contentions stack up against mine? Do ours against others'?

I'll take mine.

[stevenleser]

176. Do my contentions stand up against yours? Well I don't quote antisemites for backup

As you have repeatedly done and did it again down thread.

[Jim Lane]

109. You've mischaracterized Skinner's comment.

He didn't comment "that the article doesn't say what BBI suggested that it said." After all, BBI's subject line was, as he explained, a verbatim quotation from the linked article (and it wasn't taken out of context).

Skinner's point was that the Obama executive order that was the subject of the linked article didn't say what the linked article said it said.

The difference is important because, as BBI pointed out in replies in that thread, the linked article was from The Progressive, not from some right-wing source.

What emerged from the thread (or at least from my skimming of it) was that Obama was largely continuing a policy of previous Presidents, not instituting something new; that the take on it in The Progressive was an overstatement; but that some DUers thought this would have been a ripe area for some "hope and change" in lieu of largely continuing a previous policy. This is certainly a legitimate debate for progressives to have.

I haven't examined any of the rest of BBI's oeuvre. That particular thread doesn't seem troublesome, unless any criticism of Obama (or, shall we say, some other centrist Democrat) is deemed to be unacceptable because it might indirectly help a Republican.

[stevenleser]

115. No, I may not have worded it elegantly, but the point is Skinner said it didnt say what BBI said it

did. Skinner was very gentle about how he said it, but that is clearly the upshot.

Yet 31 people rec'ed it anyway, because they liked that it was an attack on the President, no matter how unsupported that attack was.

[BainsBane]

125. He pointed out willful distortion on the OP's part

He used a colon after "Obama's creepy executive order' and before the quote. A colon is equivalent to an equals sign. BBI wrote the title to say that the quote was in the EO. That is what that caption means according to the rules of English grammar. Clearly it was deceptive, but since he was a right-wing troll that is hardly surprising.

[Jim Lane]

181. I don't agree with that interpretation

The quotation marks mean that the DUer making the post was quoting something else -- which was true. It's not at all uncommon for a post to quote verbatim from a linked article, which is what BBI did.

When there's a linked article about an executive order, a verbatim quotation might come from the order or from the article. Here, instead of trying to pack a lot meaning into a colon, it's useful to consider the overall context (the argument the Obama administration has advanced, correctly, in asking the Supreme Court to interpret the ACA to allow the federal subsidies). The context is that the material in quotation marks is "Putting the economy on a permanent war footing". How many people would read that and think that Obama signed an order that contained those words? Even if an order actually did that, no politician would say so.

Continuing my intrepid interpretation, I take Skinner's "Enough is enough" to mean that this post, by itself, would probably not have meant a PPR, but that it was the last straw. Cumulative impact is certainly something the admins should consider in making these decisions. I haven't bothered to look at other BBI posts so I'm neither supporting nor condemning the PPR decision.

[msanthrope]

38. Check out the jury hide abovethread....the alerter used the same

language Skinner used to ppr BBI....

[stevenleser]

42. I don't think the chance that is coincidence is very high. Admins should look into that alert.

Dare I say, "Better Believe it"?

[Sheepshank]

50. Before I clicked on the list of reccers, I made a mental list of who is likely to be named there

...I was not disappointed.

[stevenleser]

79. Yep. It begins to explain a lot, doesn't it? nt

[Sheepshank]

103. explanation only in part...mostly a confirmation n/t

[djean111]

55. A belief that people here only rec OPs that they agree with is......interesting.

I rec OPs if I feel that they deserve attention, whether I agree with them or not.

[stevenleser]

60. Except I didn't make that contention, did I? nt

[Octafish]

67. No you made your contention to denigrate those who supported the OP.

Guilt by association is a tool of the propagandist.

[stevenleser]

76. Nope, I made no such comment. You find it embarrassing because it is, not because of what I wrote.nt

[Mojorabbit]

111. I do the same thing

There are a lot of over the top amusing to me posts that I vehemently disagree with but rec anyway.

[Blue_In_AK]

136. I do that, as well.

I recommend a lot of posts that I don't necessarily agree with 100%.

[djean111]

139. Ooooh, now you are on some LISTS! Or in a slam book. Or something.

[Blue_In_AK]

141. Probably.

I don't really care. I know who my friends are.

[mmonk]

99. I'll vouch for Octafish, a very informed poster here.

[panader0]

167. I guess I didn't see that one --an epic post-- and nice work by you msanthrope.

[msanthrope]

182. I thank you for the compliment. ...that thread was fun. nt

[Scootaloo]

128. Too bad getting shitcanned for right-wing trollery only seems to happen in GD / LBN

I could think of at least two neighborhoods that could use a little street-sweeping in that regard.

Is The daily Caller an acceptable source on DU?

[msanthrope]

137. No--and I'd mock anybody who cited Tucker Carlson's rag into the ground. nt

[Number23]

156. Read also for the simpletons having the time of their lives yukking it up in that thread

in actual AGREEMENT with the OP.

Oh, I love the Internet. Just noticed DevonRex in that thread. Haven't seen her in a very long time.

And just noticed the comment from RowdyBoy at the end. I always liked him.

[msanthrope]

163. And the recs.....and what a bullshit hide above us. I miss Rowdyboy. nt

[daredtowork]

179. There's one I'd like to get noticed on

Shoveling out GoP talking points against SSI (same ones that can be expanded to Social Security and other "entitlements&quot . But since this isn't a central issue for most people here, it seems like they are flying under the radar so far.

Ps. Yes, I have attempted to report to admins with detailed explanation/links.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. There's a clique here that actually attempts to paint DUers

they don't like with the suspicion of being right-wingers by repeating the name/phrase "Better Believe It" when referring to said DUers. Just do a DU search and you'll see who they are and how they do it.

Indeed, I won't be surprised when one or more respond to this post with some sort of smart ass comment.

[msanthrope]

18. Actually...if you run my username against some well-known banned trolls,

like dkf, Hannah Bell, HiPointDem, ElJohns, and few others, you'll see that at least my usage has turned out to be pretty prophetic.....

But I'm no Sid, or zappaman.

[Octafish]

34. Or SDuderstadt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4021403

[BainsBane]

37. I don't see Msanthrope in that thread at all

[Octafish]

44. No, but msanthrope's chums SidDithers and zappaman found much in common with SDuderstadt.

...who did much to advance the right wing POV on DU.

Need a link?

[stevenleser]

47. By all means, provide links. This should be good.

- because I'm betting the links do not connote what you are alleging they do

[stevenleser]

66. Just as I expected, first one off the bat doesnt say what you imply it says.

In your first link:

No reason to fear a man of peace, zappaman.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x310327

Zappaman and SDuderstadt never reply to each other once. So your accusation is debunked immediately on that one. On to the next...

[Octafish]

72. Seeing how you asked for examples...

...The Tag Team approach is vintage Bullying.

You'll notice I have not engaged in that Tag Team approach to DU.

[stevenleser]

73. Its a forum. Anyone can respond to you on any comment. That doesnt make it tag team. nt

[Octafish]

74. Right. Like pointing out who recced a post by a DUer.

Oh look! They must be freepers.

Sounds kind of asinine, but what do I know about asinine?

[stevenleser]

78. Hey, I know you are embarrassed by your rec and you should be. That's not my fault. nt

[Octafish]

88. Where am I embarrassed? Your imagination?

I stand in my opposition to wars without end for profits without cease.

War Is Sell - Washington Elite Benefits from War

Christopher Bollyn
October 31, 2001

War has always been a profitable money machine for shrewd investors with foresight, but the extremely close connections of the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based private equity investment firm and major war profiteer, to the Bush and Bin Laden families raise unavoidable questions of waging war for profit.

Established in 1987 the Carlyle Group was founded by David Rubenstein, a former staff member in the Jimmy Carter White House, and his two partners, Dan D'Aniello and Bill Conway. Today there are 18 partners in the firm and one outside investor. The Washington Post has described Carlyle as a "merchant banking firm" set up "to serve corporations and wealthy families." From the beginning the founders of Carlyle have recruited former politicians as consultants: former President George H. W. Bush is among them, along with a host of other Bush family cronies.

The Bush connection to the Carlyle Group is nothing short of a scandal, according to Larry Klayman, a notable government watchdog best known for pursuing the scandals of former President Bill Clinton. Now that the United States is bombing Afghanistan and allocating huge sums of money for defense, including $40 billion for the "war on terrorism" and more than $200 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the conflict of interest is "direct," Klayman says. "President Bush should not ask but demand that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group." Carlyle owns many of the companies that will share in the $200 billion JSF deal.

"Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration (Bush II) as they can possibly be," Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, said. "George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that. To me, that's a jaw-dropper."

CONTINUED...

http://www.bollyn.com/war-is-sell-washington-elite-benefits-from-war

Do you ever wonder about that, stevenleser?

[SidDithers]

129. Christopher Bollyn is another anti-Semite...

I know you won't be able to reply, because you're locked out of the thread, but you should be aware that Christopher Bollyn is an anti-Semitic piece of shit.

http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/christopher-bollyn-september-11-anti-semitism-2

Bol­lyn has focused most of his research on 9–11 and has con­tin­ued to make the claim that the ter­ror­ist attacks were orches­trated by Israel and the Jews. In Bollyn’s 2012 book, Solv­ing 9–11: The Decep­tion that Changed the World, he writes, “The ‘false flag’ ter­ror­ism of 9–11 is a mon­strous Jewish-Zionist crime of our time. The true cul­prits of this heinous crime are clearly being pro­tected by a gang of like-minded Jew­ish Zion­ists in the high­est posi­tions of the U.S. government….”

It's that propensity thing again, eh?

Sid

[NuclearDem]

131. Oh dear ZOG.

[SidDithers]

183. Yup...

Bollyn is a fucking loon.

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2010/06/32-christopher-bollyn.html

Sid

[zappaman]

134. Another one?

It's disturbing how many anti-Semites get cited on DU.

[stevenleser]

175. What I "wonder" is how someone ends up quoting and rec'ing so many trolls and antisemites

As Zappaman noted you quoted yet another antisemite here. We can add this to Paul Craig Roberts and the rest of the antisemites you have quoted in the past.

Assuming you aren't an antisemite, and I am completely willing to assume that, what does it say for any particular sub-philosophy of Liberalism or Progressivism you purport to espouse that so many of the leaders of that sub-philosophy that you quote for backup or recommend are antisemites, trolls and crackpots?

[snooper2]

81. my chemtrails are lacking the radiation my garden will need

who shall I call?

[Octafish]

84. snooper2! The poster who got me to go to Duquesne!

Snooper2 wanted to know if I’d asked DUers for money and wondered how much support I had gotten from my “fan base.”

Despite the discouragement, I shared on DU some of what I learned there:

Octafish to attend JFK assassination conference. Do you think JFK still matters?

JFK Conference: Amazing Day of Information and Connecting with Good People

After JFK Conference, when I got home, I felt like RFK.

JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings

JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee

JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power

JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination

JFK Conference: David Talbot named Allen Dulles as 'the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination'

JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation

Noah's Ark - Nov. 22, 1963 (at Oakland Community College in Michigan)

JFK Remembered: Dan Rather and James Swanson talk at The Henry Ford (like Heinz History Center, a Smithsonian Affiliated Institution.)

Seven Days in May -- tonight on TCM

Machine Gun Mouth

So, while I don't recall you for much else, you did goad me into action. Thanx!

[snooper2]

87. no prob...what I'm here for

LOL

[Octafish]

90. No kidding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158313#post18



What an odd thing for a Democrat to say.

[stevenleser]

75. And in the second and third links, it also doesnt indicate what you imply.

In a massive thread with over 400 comments including dozens by you and zappaman

Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x292552

Lay off Octafish, Dude
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x298650

the only interaction between Zappaman and SDuderstadt is this:

zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #384
385. Lay off Octafish, dude
He just needs a little more time...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #385
386. Do you think he needs another...
47 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #386
387. well...
most CTers will tell you that this case won't be solved "in their lifetime", so we shouldn't hold our breaths.
but our great grandchildren will one day look back and call Octafish..."hero".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-12-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #387
388. You mean like the...
sandwich?

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

Wow, that's some collaboration there Octafish! You've solved a conspiracy of epic proportions!

[Octafish]

83. Like I'm going to post their PMs, stevenleser?

Don't you need some kind of Host authority to do that?

My point is they have a similarity in purpose: Shutting down discussion of crimes of the national security state.

For your enjoyment, a sample of my PM's with SDuderstadt:

[stevenleser]

120. PMs from one to you means nothing. And finally your fourth link above, which I have to

respond to here because it was hidden, only has posts from Zappaman, so, implying that this fourth link proves collaboration between Zappaman and a banned DUer who didn't even post in that thread is, to put it succinctly, bunk.

I don't know why your post was hidden, but your contentions have certainly been disproven.

[zappaman]

121. I have never sent him a PM.

Possibly he is confused.
And I could care less if someone else did.

[stevenleser]

122. He seems to believe any disagreement with him constitutes a right wing conspiracy.

And if this is alerted, jurors please see the entirety of this thread and the thread below this one, which includes accusations by the poster in question that resulted in a hidden post and which I systematically debunked and which include others who also see that this person seems to equate disagreement with him as being right wing.

[BainsBane]

51. You want me to go back through posts from years ago

To see that some people here agreed with someone, who I'm guessing by your response above was PPR'd as a troll? No thanks. I've seen plenty of trolls PPR'd in the time I've been here and have a pretty good sense of who appreciated them. I'm really not interested in y'all's ancient grudges.

[marym625]

80. +1000

I wish everyone would be more concerned with the subject of post they're replying to than the people rec'ing.

This look who did this, look who rec'd that, scoreboard is high school.

[nilesobek]

178. Its playing, "stat boy," like they do with polling statistics.

I'm immune to all that commissar stuff. I think going back years to research posters and their polling habits etc must be a thankless job. There is an intangible hostility to all of it I find hard to describe.

[marym625]

180. Pretty good description. n/t

[NuclearDem]

56. How exactly do Sid and zappaman work to "advance the right wing POV on DU"?

And no, not liking your OPs is not an answer.

[Octafish]

58. Denigrating those who point out the right wing POV.

Doesn't GOOGLE show that for you?

[NuclearDem]

59. Again, not liking your OPs doesn't count.

[Octafish]

64. You're a bright person, you figure it out.

Best of luck with that.

[NuclearDem]

68. Yeah, you're not the arbiter of what's right wing or not around here.

[Octafish]

71. Never said I was.

But, you knew that.

[NuclearDem]

89. Given the amount of times you've accused others of, what was it...

"trying to shut down discussion of crimes of the national security state", when they are, hypothetically, mocking laughable conspiracy theory bullshit, yeah, you've said as much.

[Octafish]

92. Show where I post ''hypothetically, mocking laughable conspiracy theory bullshit''

Show where I've intentionally lied or presented information that was not true on DU, NuclearDem.

Go through my Journal on DU3 or DU2.

Show.

[NuclearDem]

96. Wait, you're being serious?

Oh dear lord.

[Octafish]

100. So, you can't show where I'm wrong.

Here are representatives of two families who have a long history of denigrating "Conspiratorial Thinking"...



Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush, sharing a moment and a bit o' information in this small world.

Rothschild and Freshfields founders’ had links to slavery, papers reveal

By Carola Hoyos
Financial Times

Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.

Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.

Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.

JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.

CONTINUED (with registration, etc) ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html

The back of the object they are examining shows typing in a box, often used on official US government photos for identifying content on the front of a photograph.

[NuclearDem]

102. Yeah, why would the Rothschilds have problems with conspiracy theories?

Other than being the target of every "Jewish banker" canard ever?

[stevenleser]

119. Yes, you have implied it constantly. Disagreeing with you=pro right wing. You've implied that again

and again.

[NuclearDem]

184. Pro-right wing, pro-TEPCO, pro-national security state, pro-MIC.

The list goes on.

[stevenleser]

63. And in your world, that includes them denigrating BBI who it turns out was a right wing troll? nt

[Octafish]

65. Does that make sense to you?

Gosh.

[zappaman]

98. Says the guy who called a banned anti-Semitic troll a "great DUer".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5888735

Fire Walk With Me was banned for being an anti-Semite. Hardly someone I would call a "great DUer".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=167827&sub=trans

Odd that you would refer to him that way well after he was banned.
Why you would do that, i cannot say.

[msanthrope]

105. Octa....I never claimed to be as good as Sid and Zappa....but they were correct. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

140. Oh, man, I had forgotten all about that guy.

[Marr]

70. Actually, it seems to come up in response to a whole lot of people who are in good standing.

If you accuse everyone in the country of being a thief, you can't claim psychic powers when the police arrest a few thieves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Purists and right wingers are mutually exclusive as used on this board.

There are definitely trolls on this board but I believe most folks here are honest about their political leanings.


That being said the safest thing to do on a left leaning or right leaning board is to stake out the furthest left and right wing positions as possible. That will make you uber popular. The Recommends attest to that.

[2banon]

85. In this context, what's a "Purist" ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. True believer./NT

[2banon]

101. Ok. so it's not intended as a sneer, put down, otherwise perjoratively?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. No./NT

[2banon]

114. Ok. Taking your word with regard to intentions ..

please consider this merely as a friendly suggestion:

perhaps, it would serve you better to avoid using the term "purist", these days, because it is considered a sneer, a pejorative, condescending, and fairly offensive (among other things) when others use it on this board as well as in the public fora, more generally .. and those other people make it pretty clear as to their insulting/offensive intentions.

[Jamastiene]

166. I'm lost again.

Which side is it that are the "purists" again? I can't keep up. I stay so totally confused on the latest insults and who they might be directed at nowadays.

[stevenleser]

25. That's your interpretation and spin. Another interpretation, which has more evidence, is to

look at this OP by BBI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002451396 read it, read Skinner's comments about it and see who rec'ed this ridiculous spin by BBI and make one's own conclusions about the goals of those who recommended it who continue to post biased and slanted OPs and comments about the President to this day.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. So, that I have seen numerous examples of DUers being tagged with

"you better believe it" is "interpretation and spin"?

You linked me to a BBI post, as if you think I don't know. It wasn't BBI that I was talking about. I was talking about the clique that tags other DUers with suspicion by using that phrase in response to something that is said. That is not "interpretation and spin". It's what has actually happened and what I have seen with my own eyes.

I'll read that thread, by the way. But it has nothing to do with what I said.

[stevenleser]

30. It has everything to do with what you said as I am sure most who read it and your comments will note

but I am interested to hear what you think after reading it.

The point is, Skinner banned BBI because he pretended to be an uber-progressive and proceeded to bash Obama from that contrived standpoint and utilized every possible smear from right wing media to do so. And there were many who enthusiastically responded to him as evidenced by comments and the recommendations to the OP I linked. Many of those who recced it are still engaging in similar behavior and in doing so are eliciting the response of "Better Believe It" to which you object.

[Marr]

82. There have been many trolls on this site who took on an opposite persona, too.

Do we really need to look up posts from banned trolls and compare the rec's in each? Do you really want to?

[BainsBane]

135. I have to say

I find myself perplexed about how intelligent people are unable to recognize similar impostors. People seem so anxious to see their views confirmed, they don't discern how exaggerated and shallow troll content tends to be.

[stevenleser]

142. I have no problem with comparing recs. That's part of the transparency of DU.

Let's make sure we are prepared to do nuance, however.

XYZ troll can join and post a comment that extols President Obama's position seeking an agreement with Iran. Many folks will Rec it. XYZ Troll gets banned later. Rec'ing that post is no big deal IMHO.

Rec'ing a post by XYZ Troll that is a dishonest attack on a Democrat and a blatant distortion of the facts, and then it comes out that XYZ troll was a right winger masquerading as a Democrat and his entire purpose at DU was to divide Democrats against each other and against elected Democrats? Well, that is embarrassing IMHO and SHOULD be embarrassing.

It's sad that I even have to say this, but I am sure as the day is long that some folks will try to make a dishonest comparison between rec's of banned DUers.

[Marr]

165. I doubt that either variety of troll employs more dishonest attacks or spurious arguments than the

other, nuanced or not.

The only difference is our personal biases. I think we're all guilty of binary thinking from time to time, and giving the people we perceive as being on 'our side' more leeway than they really should receive.

[BainsBane]

170. The difference is that kind of troll is here to promote the GOP

to sow discord among Democrats to encourage disillusionment so Democrats don't vote and Republicans win. The difference is he and those like him are complete and total liars, not simply people who disagree about tactics, personalities, or issues. Good people can disagree on any number of issues, but when they are lying about their views, it makes a mockery of debate.

[Marr]

171. They're after the same things, no matter what persona they wear.

They want to get an emotional response and disrupt discussion, that's it.

[BainsBane]

172. I think the BBI variety is more insidious

because really they are moles rather than trolls. Trolls-- like my racist, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-semitic admirer--come and go, and no one takes them seriously. This character was another story.

[RiffRandell]

149. I think it's an appropiate joke.

If you do read the linked thread, you'll see that at the end of the thread Bobbie Jo debunked it (good job!) and that's what's funny....BBI would post OPs that were skeptical which I found pretty funny considering his/her user name.

Speaking of cliques, it's similar to ProSense being mocked for her blue links...although I gave those more credibility than the Believer's.

Criticize Obama all you want, but um yeah...enough WAS enough.

[Agnosticsherbet]

97. So that'ts what that phrase is about.

Most interesting bit on DU culture I've seen in quite a while.

[Bobbie Jo]

20. Honestly

I think she's back for an encore performance.

Truly an insidious troll...

eta: the only 2 hides I ever had on this board were connected to dealing with this troll.

A couple of my favorite quotes regarding BBI:

"one of our most respected DU'ers."

"I can't decide whether you're a caricature or cliche'."

[aikoaiko]

24. BBI was inconvenient during the last presidential election cycle

[Starry Messenger]

46. Someone whose influence on the obsessed here

is far outweighed by any actual influence he had.

[valerief]

77. Sometimes I like to check my Ignore list to see who's been tombstoned.

I see on it 3 former members with posting privileges revoked late 2014 or 2015 but with join dates of 2010, 2011, and early 2014. There may be more like that; I haven't checked all the names.

Sometimes I put people on Ignore just based on their name. You can tell when it's a snarky RWer using a cheesy leftie name.

[RufusTFirefly]

86. "You can tell when it's a snarky RWer using a cheesy leftie name."

Yes!! Methinks they doth protest too much.

[randome]

91. So...we done here?

It's amazing how such an innocuous question has morphed into a thread with nearly a hundred replies now. Oh, well, maybe some politician will say something stupid pretty soon and then we'll have a new reason to argue.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

95. BBI was someone with way too much support here for far too long.

Big fan of propaganda outlets like rt. BBI was in early on the rt game.

[JaneyVee]

106. I thought BBI was actually Glenn Greewald.

Seriously. Didn't everyone know this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. BBI was also a big fan of the Chinese government

You can find many posts by them extolling the virtues of something they did, denigrating Tibet in general, and complaining that DU is anti-Chinese. Since they started posting here before Obama became president, that actually seemed to be their main schtick at first. It was only from 2009 that they changed into a machine for posting articles critical of Obama.

[SidDithers]

133. Oh man, I'd forgotten about that...

He was big on the whole Da-Lie Lama bit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3133638

Sid

[BainsBane]

143. OMG

I recognize that posting style in some of the pro-Putin threads.

[Hekate]

110. LOL -- BBI

[GusBob]

112. Is this the same troll who was actually a moderator at one point?

back in my lurking days I remember some sort of kerfuffle about that

could be mistaken

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. No, I don't think so

Moderators were pretty suspicious of him from the start, and I don't think admin make controversial people mods (there was one several years ago who became controversial, but never as infamous as BBI).

[Go Vols]

127. graham4anything

was a host when banned from DU.

[pintobean]

130. LoZoccolo too

[joshcryer]

144. LoZ told Skinner directly he was going to troll...

...slightly more honest than those pretending to contribute genuinely...

[BainsBane]

138. He isn't a right-winger

His ban had to do with drama in the hosts group.

[Go Vols]

145. I was a host at the time

he was banned for being a troll.

[BainsBane]

146. Troll can mean a lot of things

He posts on DI, and he is clearly a Democrat.

[Go Vols]

154. Correct

[Blue_In_AK]

147. He may not have been a right-winger,

but he was annoying as hell.

[pintobean]

162. Still can be.

He has no sense of moderation with his silly act. Some people thought he was Loz's sock/zombie.

[Blue_In_AK]

164. I can understand how someone would think that.

Little different presentation, but same silliness.

[Rex]

151. Very interesting replies, thanks for this OP.

A good read.

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. Used to get hundreds of recs for constant anti-Dem, especially anti-Obama tirades. Sound familiar?

[zappaman]

155. You better believe it!

[great white snark]

157. Sounds familiar looks familiar feels familiar smells familiar...

It might have died but the cohorts keep pluggin' away.

[BainsBane]

158. Does it ever.

[Number23]

160. This thread...

I don't know what I love more. The folks outting themselves and their incredibly questionable sources before the entire community, that folks are seeing EXACTLY who had BBI's back around here and them being outted too, or the fact that attention is FINALLY being shone like a searchlight at the folks still crawling around here that do the EXACT SAME THING that got BBI shit canned after way too many years.

This thing is a thing of beauty. I may grind some pepper on this thread and have it for lunch.

[Tarheel_Dem]

185. Too funny!

[Warpy]

159. One of the ones I did a happy dance to see gone

He was cagey, he'd link to a left wing site first and then cut and past trash from right wing sites below it.

I've seen that MO lately so I guess he's back under a new name. I don't bother alerting or commenting: could be him, could be some other recovering Republican, could be a new ratfucker.

[BumRushDaShow]

161. One of many who was on my ignore list

Probably about 1/2 of my list were eventually PPRd. Fire Walk With Me was another whipper snapper that was tombstoned.

[zappaman]

169. Some have called that poster a "great DUer"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5888735

Fire Walk With Me was banned for being an anti-Semite. Hardly someone I would call a "great DUer".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=167827&sub=trans

Different strokes for different folks I suppose...

[Zorra]

177. The scores of RW trolls posing as centrist Democrats who have been banned

from DU are so much more fun to discuss.