Pitt and lala: Why'd They Get Such Abuse?

[specimenfred1984]

They are both accomplished writers and contributors to DU and still got smeared to pieces.

We don't know who we can trust, yet here we are.

Speak up, get smeared and be proud of it, I doubt we'll be able to do it for much longer.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. eating our own

has been a problem with Dems for 60 years.
It's been a problem with Humans for millenia.

[specimenfred1984]

4. It's a Real Question

I like Pitt's and lala's writings and posts. Please, DO NOT FLAME EITHER WRITER.

This is a question about DU, its' posters and its' very intent. The direct question is: How much more dedicated to the democratic cause and DU's cause can a person be if their intent is still questioned and so heatedly?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. and I gave you a real answer...

without flaming anyone except all of us.

I appreciate them both. Of course, they are are both human, and it is possible that they might make mistakes occasionally.

It's a human condition. Not admirable, or helpful... but it's there.

When we harness that monster, and conquer it, we will be Perfect. someday.

[greyl]

11. Intent?

I think it ultimately turned into matters of not honestly accepting responsibility and disloyalty.

"How much more dedicated to the democratic cause and DU's cause can a person be if their intent is still questioned and so heatedly?"

I'm not sure I understand that question.
Why should scrutiny discourage someone?

[demobabe]

2. This is flamebait

We don't need a thread on this crap.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Why ask the cretins?

[specimenfred1984]

6. DUers Aren't

Both writers/posters have said it. There are only 2 possibilities: Either people simply disagree or people have other motives.

Time to accept #2.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Oh brother.

Yes, we're the ones with suspect motives. :eyes:

[greyl]

5. If someone assumes the responsibility of "speaking for us"

they'd better meet our standards, no matter who it may be.

[specimenfred1984]

7. "Standards" are Clearly Stated

in DU's posting guidelines. This is an online forum where "standards" are determined by the people in charge at any given time.

[greyl]

12. Those aren't the standards I'm talking about.

Those are default, minimum standards of behavior here, but I don't think DU at large is satisfied with default minimum standards. Do you?

[beam me up scottie]

10. You can have him.

He just wants to fight and I have to catch a few winks before work.

If you're not that bored, just toss 'im back - he's too little to keep anyway.

[orleans]

13. abuse? what'd i miss? n/t

[conflictgirl]

14. Putting people on pedestals

I only read some of the thread(s) in question and didn't post in them, but I suspect that it's neither due to suspect motives or people simply disagreeing. I think it's that when a group of people put certain people on pedestals, it becomes more likely that somebody is going to question *why* those particular individuals are put on the pedestals.

I don't have any beef with either one of them personally, but I admit that at times I was scratching my head about why so many people were treating them with something akin to hero worship. I just thought they wrote some stories that sometimes were prescient and sometimes weren't. :shrug:

I will say that fighting among ourselves is particularly unproductive, though.

[Mythsaje]

15. As I suggested in my now-disappeared thread...

"Why do we ask why?"

I believe that we're different from the freepers in some pretty fundamental ways. We have a desire for input that rivals Johnny 5's (with a nod to my fellow 80s kids), but we're also driven to critically examine the information we're given.

This is a good thing, even though it sometimes leads to conflicts when we disagree on the information. We hunt data and bring it back to the fold, but sometimes it seems tainted and people feel like they need to point it out.

The freepers swallow any data carcass dragged back to their lairs. We can't, and won't do that. So we fight about it sometimes.

edited to fix a few errors

[maddezmom]

16. it didn't disappear...it's right here

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1270135

[Mythsaje]

17. LOL...thanks

I meant off the main page.

It's no longer attracting attention, at least. A bit of tongue in cheek there. I should be more careful, considering how literal minded I am, typically. LOL

Thanks for posting the link. I should've done it myself, but I'm jumping back and forth between DU and the last couple chapters of my serial project and I guess I got lazy.

[donbrunton]

18. Jealousy

... and the inherent glee in all humans to pack like wolves and nip at prey.

Nasty stuff.

They are good writers, good people and driven to make change by taking it one step further than tapping away on a forum.

I can\\\'t believe the attacks frankly and it worries me. As a Democrat.

[jarab]

19. Welcome to DU!

...O...

[Sammy Pepys]

20. I don't really feel all that bad for Pitt.....

He made a couple of very ballsy proclamations, and they have yet to panned out. He also descended into name-calling, and while he allowed for people to question the story even that came off as somewhat arrogant in my opinion (the whole "stick with me and you will be rewarded..." thing).

I admire him for being headstrong and loyal, but that can backfire on occasion.

[Moderator]

21. locking

This is flamebait.