Difficult post to make but

[TayTay]

We had a thread about the ads that were run in the early primaries and we had a visitor. I think her comments were taken out of context. I really don't think she came in here to snark and deride but to make an honest comment based on personal experience.

I would hate to think that we have victim's disease in here and automatically assume the worst about anyone who doesn't automatically post in the purely positive. The person being accused tends to want to defend and it can turn into a downward spiral of accusations when there was no original bad intent. We don't want that. It's what we hate about various 'bad threads' in other DU groups and on other blogs and such. I think it can be handled better without engendering bad feelings.

I love this group because it's a refuge and because we have meet so many wonderful people here who, generally, agree about Kerry. But we will have the occasional person who posts something neutral or even in disagreement. I would hope that we are secure enough in our own beliefs that we can handle a mild disagreement with accusations and without doing what he ourselves point out is unfair in other threads on DU.

I am not mad at anyone or anything. But I would hate to see a positive forum like this get too defensive or push people away who might want to post in here occasionally. Dissent is fine. Inviting someone in who might disagree mildly from time to time can be a good thing and can give us some perspective.

I know, I know, 'who died and made you the Queen of Sheba TayTay?' I know. But I'm just saying, I would hate us to become the thing that we ourselves can't stand. We are better than that, our arguments are better than that and this forum is better than that.

Peace!

[politicasista]

1. I agree TayTay

Sometimes it's hard not to resist, but I can understand where you are coming from.

[whometense]

2. I appreciate what you're saying,

and would also hate to see us get all defensive and unable to embrace different points of view.

But to me that kind of felt like a home invasion. I try to remember not to get too comfortable and remember that lurkers are also reading, but apparently we can't post honest opinions (PC or not) in here about the freaking 2004 primaries without bringing down the wrath of god on our heads. The second intruder was just flat out hostile, and I don't know that we need to let that go. The first was iffier.

I'm glad you brought this up. I read through that thread last night and was mildly surprised, and didn't feel like posting there anymore. When I looked at it a few minutes ago I was shocked at what it had turned into.

[sandnsea]

3. That's a real barnburner

It did start out as a pretty honest discussion about the 527's and ads though. I think I'll let it go at that because I don't want them to think they have to come into another thread to defend themselves.

[_dynamicdems]

4. You're right.

Things got out of hand. If the individual had wanted to start a flame war, she would have done it outside this forum. She seemed to be interested in honest discourse rather than condemning anyone. I'd like to think that support does not mean we have to put blinders on.

On election day, I stood outside in a bitter cold rain holding a sign for Kerry/Edwards for about 8 hours. At first, the Kerry supporters were the only ones there...just a handful of us. No Bsh supporters. Then this little, old lady showed up on the opposite side of the street with a Bsh sign. All by herself. Oddly enough, it seemed to me, that this woman was quite heroic in her actions. She was supporting the wrong man, but she was quietly and respectfully, supporting her President. When she crossed the street to get a cup of coffee in a restaurant, I spoke with her and told her I admired what she was doing. We agreed to disagree on candidates but to agree on our individual actions. There was more in common between us than there was not. You see: both of us were out in the rain while for something we believed in as hundreds passed by in their warm cars. Maybe today she remembers me when she watches the news on television. Maybe she wonders if she voted for the wrong man.

It is easy to fight back and sometimes it is necessary. I'd hate it to get around that Kerry people are always spoiling for a fight. That would just make us look like ....well, you know.

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. Well

this is all I will say on the subject matter.

First this is the JK forum, with JK supporters, with discussion of JK past and present.

What made me angry was that this the JK forum was linked in a post in GDP by someone who definitely is not a JK supporter and who has entered this forum and disrupted before.

We were scolded for doing any type of links as they put it too gang up on a poster or a thread. Well IMO what was done by this poster not the one who came here is exactly the same thing, and was meant to do that.

We were giving our opinions and I guess she didn't like it and took the whole thing out of context. We were disrupted not by 1 but by 2 non Kerry forum posters. So to me the link was put out intentionally to cause problems, and so that they could just harp old crap again.

Little Clarkie asked a question and ask for our thoughts, I see nothing wrong with that. What I do see wrong is that there are some on DU, watching everything we say, and can't wait to jump in and disrupt.

I'll tell you this those posters were not ones that would like to discuss JK in a positive way, now if that turns those types away thats fine with me. But to say we shouldn't defend what was said in this the JK forum , I do not think is right.

I alerted on the poster that linked to this forum and nothing was done. Enough is enough. I make sure I never bash anyone and I do not consider myself as being at their level either. They should have never came to this forum in the first place and it should not have been linked in a GDP post.

I'm sorry but they were not here to have a pleasant conversation,or to join the group, they were here because of the the link provided to them. So are we to be silenced even here on the JK forum ?

[whometense]

6. I ask this honestly,

and not meaning to be snarky - do you think it's the mention of Dean's name that brought them here? What was it about that thread that attracted that kind of attention. I saw nothing wrong with Little Clarkie's original question either. And I agree with much of what you're saying.

[karynnj]

17. Does anyone know what the post in the other forum that linked here said?

I didn't see it. But that may tell why these people were attracted.

[TayTay]

19. Boy there's the rub.

We can't link to a thread outside, specifically this one, per Skinner. I haven't read the other one. (I thought I did, but apparently not.)

Sigh!

[madfloridian]

7. The rules say these forums are not supposed to used for attacking.

Also the rules say that you are not supposed to link to polls and such, just to pump up the number of posts on the thread.

I do not think there is a rule about linking, per se.

However, please feel free to keep alerting on my thread. I feel the moderators will make the right decision.

[wisteria]

10. I disagree with the the suggestion the other thread here was attacking .

I read it and I don't see where it was anything more than a discussion, about the primaries and our opinions concerning them.
If it happened to be about Dean well, what exactly is wrong about that. You seem to feel put upon, well I too feel put upon. Correct me if I am wrong, but by far, the Kerry bashers are Dean supporters. Clark,Edwards,Gore,Hillary and Warner posters on Kerry threads are never as hurtful or vulgar as the Dean supporters are. This forum is, as it should be our refuge from the negative hyperbole out there in GD and GDP.
You feel put upon, well so do I. I supported Dean when he was running for the DNC chairmanship and I give money to his grassroots efforts on a monthly basis. I think it is a real good initiative. I would never of even heard about this efforts if not for John Kerry. He notified many of us through an e-mail and asked that we support Dean and this effort. I was never a Dean supporter for President.I thank you for your efforts in supporting Kerry eventually in the general election. Your efforts were not in vain. Kerry is still working for all of our benefit. I was for Kerry even before the primaries. I am as proud of him as you are of Dean. Imagine how I feel to have him so viciously attacked in every Kerry thread. We here at this forum have had to develop a very thick skin and fight back the attacks. I am sorry, but I just don't see the piles of manure being hurled at Dean as they are at Kerry.

I think you were wrong to make a personal discussion in this forum available to all at GD.

[TayTay]

11. Ah, so that's what happened.

I couldn't trace back to the link between this forum and our post and something outside. (It was an inverse of what Skinner specifically asked us NOT to do. Well, that's still breaking the rules.)

I dearly wish the Dean - Kerry wars would end. They have for the principals, I dearly wish they would be toned down on DU. They serve no purpose, except to divide people who need to unite for a common purpose. Sigh! This is so sad. The extreme dislike and disrespect shown to Kerry on the DU regular forums is just fuel for inter-Dem wars that are exhausting and make everyone just feel hurt and disrespected. I don't get why these keep flairing up.

I wish there was a way to call a truce, but, I don't know how.

[madfloridian]

12. There is more to the story.

I wish it would end as well. I have asked that my thread be locked because it refers to a now archived thread.

I wrote a response to you in the other thread. I have been supportive of Kerry.

I am not going to come back into this forum, but I just wanted to say there was more to it.

I am done now, totally. Completely and totally.

[wisteria]

15. I read it and I thank you for the support- I'm sure we all do.

Maybe we all should learn from the men we admire, to let it go and move on. I hope you really don't mean you are totally done.

[wisteria]

13. Me either! Maybe a new rule stating that we all need to move on

and stop fighting the past.

[_dynamicdems]

14. If a million dollars didn't help, I don't know what will. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. You are not a moderator and your job is not to enforce the rules.

I for one deeply resent your audacity in presuming to "monitor" this group for what YOU consider "inappropriate" threads. You are not a moderator, so stop acting like one - especially when you only seem interested in enforcing the "rules" when they suit your flamboyantly obvious agenda.

[TayTay]

8. Fair enough. There is reason to feel ganged up on

out there in some of the DU forums. That's why we have this forum. And it is jarring to have people come in here when the rules clearly state that we are *paying* for a snark-free zone. I agree.

I absolutely, under no conditions, think we should 'sit back and take it' when snarky comments are made or just plain untruths are said. There is no purpose to being on a public board if you are not going to defend your positions. (And so many people here are so good at it. And it's good for people to go out and defend their positions it strengthens your ability to argue and to reason effectively. That's a very good thing.)

But, it also seemed, to me (and maybe just to me, again who died and made me the Queen of Sheba) that the thread in question went over some line. It became too defensive and too harsh. It just didn't seem to me that we needed to be that way. I like to think that we argue from a pretty good position of strength and of some knowledge (perhaps meager in my case) of the facts. We don't actually need the harshness. I really don't think we do.

Again, this is just an observation on my part. (Cuz I'm either dumb or fearless or both.) But I just don't want to become the thing I dislike. That does not imply weakness, it actually implies strength.

[_dynamicdems]

33. After the person who posted the link came here, I did a search of his

recent posts and found the post in question. (I'm referring to the person down further in this thread who pretty much told everyone to alert him/her to the forum moderators.)

What was interesting is that this individual didn't have access to post here originally. He must have donated just so he could come in here and issue that challenge or whatever it was.

[TayTay]

9. The other discussion we never really had was on The Rules

and what they mean. We had Skinner come in and ask us to do (or rather not do) a very specific thing on the other DU forums. I think that got misconstrued and misinterpreted. I think we should have a discussion of exactly what we perceive the rules to be. (I actually asked Skinner if this was a permitted discussion and he said yes, so I was unclear on the concept of discussing what is an is not acceptable in these forums and got some clarification.)

We can, of course, post in any open forum on DU. We can discuss anything we want and reply to any thread we want, same as any other DU member. Skinner and the other mods are trying to keep peace, after a fashion, on DU and not have some of these horribly divisive 'anger threads' that can pop up at the drop of a hat. We were specifically asked not to post in this forum with the exact link to an 'anger thread' on another forum and ask members of this group to go into that particular thread and post en masse. (However, should we be perusing DU and find an 'anger thread' post away.) Other good citizens of DU who also have the same posting rights we do, complained about being ganged up on. As a mod, what else can they do but respectfully ask us not to do that. (I can see their point.)

Pretend you are Skinner or one of the mods for a second. You are charged with being the Sheriff of DU. How do you keep the peace and encourage free and open debate and discussion? This is 'a' solution and is 'a' way of keeping the forums just a little bit less divisive. (I really don't think DU was founded in order to give Dems a chance to 'shoot' each other. I think the original purpose was more to find common ground, and common purpose, but things evolve.)

What other things come up in an airing of how we keep the rules here? (Which, again, I checked with Skinner to make sure we could discuss. We are not discussing or debating DU's rules. They are what they are. What we are discussing is how to apply them and to try and clear up the confusion and hurt feelings in here over the application of those rules.)

[karynnj]

16. The first of the 2 non-Kerry people actually wrote

me (and I would guess others) a nice PM. I think she may have innocently followed the link. I think to some extent, she as an Iowan may have experienced on the nights of the early primaries some of what we felt on Nov 3, 2004.

I think the discussion was better than the same discussion has been elsewhere. The question was asked and answered by people here - before she came. She did articulate what she thought Kerry and his campaign did wrong. Even taking her worst points, there is little there. I don't know if ewe did or even could have changed her position one iota.

The problem is as Whome said it feels like a home invasion. I found that far more true with the snarky second non-Kerry person. Looking at the lists of bad things we said - the main thing I see is many were taken almost as much out of context as Bush's recent list. The other thing I see is that if this is the worst they can find - we are not a very nasty group. Compare any statement to the NORM of the any Kerry garbage posted everywhere. As to his comments that the other candidate's groups don't talk of these things - he's righe - they rarely converse about anything.

[TayTay]

18. I agree with that. The other forums seem to be info-based

whereas we use this forum to discuss everything. We are a very vibrant and lively place. (And passionate and devoted as well.)

Some of this is a circular discussion. I think there are a lot of adherents of other Dems who are genuinely as tired of the snarky and hurtful comments on DU as we are. (WillPitt even pops in from time to time to try and get some DU folks to stop being so derisive and abusive toward other Dems.)

I don't know what the answer is. Some of it is disrupters who get perverse pleasure from being disruptive. Some of it is the fact that people get personally attached to certain pols and it hurts them personally to see the snarkiness and disrespect. (Sometimes it does feel like an unfair beatdown.)

I just don't want to add fuel to the fires. I think there are people in other forums and in DU who are also tired of it all and want the endless wars to cease. (They serve no purpose. They change no minds and can only make 'against' arguments stickier.)

Whome and everyone else who said that it felt like a home invasion had a point. This is supposed to be a safe haven. I wish I knew how to make it so, but also make it safe to go out in DU and post without it seeming like a something we don't intend for it to be, a ganging up on someone else. (Which we don't see ourselves as doing. We see oursleves as defending, but to someone else it might come out wrong. They they get defensive and so the spiralling down continues.) Sigh!

[JI7]

20. i'm sorry but

i find certain people to be really big fucking hypocrites with a victim mentality. they really need to get over themselves. stupid fuckwads.

[TayTay]

22. Hahahahaha! Well, there is that.

Hahahahaha! (Sorry, but i couldn't help myself.) Okay, I was going for slightly noble here, but I have posted these sentiments myself before and I reserve the right to do so again. hahahahahahaha!

I just love this forum. I just love it!

[whometense]

23. hahahahaha

But what do you really think??? :hug:

[JI7]

21. and my post is based on knowing the history of the posters

not one some disagreement. and it doesn't really have to do with Kerry but rather the people themselves being asshole hypocrites.

[whometense]

24. You make a good point.

One of the reasons this is such a wonderful group us that a pretty large core group of people post so much that we have really gotten to know each other to the point where we can understand where everyone's coming from.

When people post from out of the blue without introducing themselves and take a belligerent tone it comes across as hostile and aggressive. There are ways and there are ways. It's entirely possible to enter the discussion in a more neutral way, if that's what the intention is.

We are a very welcoming group. I look at it this way. Imagine you just moved into a new town. You would introduce yourself to the new neighbors, have tea with them, chitchat about the town, and get to know them before you started in on their politics. Same thing here.

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. They are good

at putting a guilt trip on us, when it really is on them.

You are right about the history. I was a mod on the Kerry blog and I learned a lot about the certain patterns that non-Kerry supporters have and those patterns are relevant today.

[MH1]

26. Well, I have an idea how it started.

Not sure if I should apologize or not. I posted a thread here asking for comparison of Korb plan to Kerry and Murtha plan. I don't believe there was anything whatsoever that could rationally be taken as an attack on Dean (or anyone else) in my original post, and I don't recall seeing anything terrible in the comments either. The intent of my post was merely to get insights from the knowledgeable folks here about the nuances of these different Iraq exit plans. That was all. However I feel bad that it seems to have "started something" (and I diddn't stay tuned in to see how much it started).

A poster in GD felt somehow we were using this forum as a place to gripe against other Dems (in this case Dean), and that it is unfair that those Dems' supporters cannot post rebuttals in this forum - although I don't think that is true either, why couldn't they post a respectful rebuttal of a comment about Dean here, as long as they weren't bashing Kerry or us, just presenting facts?

I don't know if LittleClarkie's post was spurred from this discussion in GD or just coincidental, but the same poster saw that and was further inflamed. (I saw nothing wrong with LC's post, although I can see how some of the characterizations in the subsequent comments - such as "Deaniacs" and "crazies" could upset someone who felt those labels were being applied to them).

This is how I recall it, based on my interaction with one of the upset posters out in GD.. I am very tired now so not sure if this is coherent. Anyway I don't really think anyone's mad at me here (let me know if you are though) but still I am sorry if it was my post that initially started the trouble. Also, and most importantly, if that post violated the rules at all then I hope someone will let me know!!

I didn't want to let this go by without acknowledging my share of responsibility. Although I don't think any of us here did anything wrong.

And as I've said elsewhere - Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope this little tempest hasn't disturbed anyone's teapot too much (including the non-JK fans) and that everyone relaxes and enjoys the holiday.

[TayTay]

28. No one could possibly be mad at you for something

so innocent. That was simply a request for information. Geez, that above all else whould be allowed on a public board. That's what these forums and DU sort of exist for: to ask for and discuss information.

I think we are all so tired of the snark from all the usual places. It think it wears on you after a while. The desire to hold a civil conversation in other DU groups seems to get thwarted a lot by the naysayers. It sometimes devolves into a conversation that seems like you've had already a million times already.

MH!, you did nothing wrong at all. At all.

[MH1]

30. I didn't really think so....

but I want to be open to other people's perspectives.

The only thing I thought of possible concern (as to the technical rules), is that I linked to a post in GD amd basically said, let's discuss this here. I feel sure that is within the rules, but it did seem to upset someone so I wanted to consider the possibility.

Thanks for your supportive response! I agree with everything you said.

[karynnj]

29. But it was a valid decision - Kerry has a plan as do other Democrats

that Dean was interested in a plan that from a Reagan administration person was interesting and not a negative. The question was the same question asked about the other plans. How does it fit with the other palns. We've compared Feingold's to Kerry's and Murtha's to Kerry's - and at some point the quesstion will be how does Biden's compare.

It is interesting that a prominent Republican has a plan. Just as having Murtha, a former col. and a hawk talking withdrawal (in a relatively short timeframe) moves the issue in a different way than Feingold, Kennedy or Kerry doing the same thing would do. Even if Dean hadn't showed interest this would still be a good thing to talk about. The broader the range of people talking exit plans the better. It also does relate to Kerry because he has an exit plan.

[Vektor]

27. Truth be known...

This is our oasis. This is a forum where non-supporters are not allowed, and I really don't want any naysayers here. GD and GDP are crawling with negativity and Kerry-bashing and I want this to be the one place where that isn't tolerated or welcome. If I want debate and dissent, I'll go to *every single to other DU forum* where it is rampant and unfailingly unchecked.

Here, it should be all about the Kerry love.

Just being honest. :shrug:

[BlueIris]

32. Honesty is refreshing.

I don't want to read criticisms from non-supporters about Kerry in this forum, either. I don't think that makes me someone who has some strange "victim's disease" with regard to my president. Having recently reviewed the rules for posting in this group, I notice that they are a little...vague on this issue (for some reason, though I have reviewed them before, I thought the rules featured more clearly defined parameters about what comments are and are not allowed about Kerry here). To review:

"The mission of the DU John Kerry Supporters group is for members to discuss the highlights and history of his career and life, any impact he's had on our country, his accomplishments, his service and stance regarding the Vietnam war, and the strong emotional attachment that a lot of people seem to have developed toward him, especially since the 2004 Presidential Election. We will also support a grassroots communication with him so that he continues to speak for the 55 million who voted for him."

I guess that leaves room for posters who don't support Kerry for president, or even as a continued presence in the senate, (boo, hiss) and somewhat or strongly oppose his philosophies and opinions about government but--it shouldn't. (And while the group rules don't expressly prohibit non-supporters from adding their input, I would like to point out that the DU forum posting rules ask that people who don't support the continued election of Democrats stay away.) I'm with Vektor. The non-supporters, the critics and the bashers have the rest of this website in which to air their concerns. In my view, not everyone here has to love everything Kerry does all the time, not everyone here has to believe he can or should take another shot at getting recognized as president, not everyone has to love him. I guess. Still, I think you should at least be of a mindset about him which is generally positive enough to be called support. If you aren't, you have all of the other forums in which to share your perspectives.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. I agree with JI7

Some people here CANNOT let go of the primaries, and it ain't us. I think a lot of people here hate the fact that we HAVE found a refuge from their bullshit in here, and hate that they can't come shout us down in here as well as in GD and GDP.