Sanders Group members--all DUers, really: Please be cautious.

[merrily]

In the last few months, I and others have noticed an influx of posters who registered many years ago, but have very few posts relative to the number of years they have been members of DU.

Some of these posters purport to be pro-Hillary. Some purport to be pro-Bernie. I do not automatically draw conclusions about posters with low post counts. I am sure some are authentic. I can understand getting fired up about a primary and wanting to post here about it. But, I do have to wonder about posters who registered in, for example, 2001, have racked up under 2000 posts total in the past 14 years, but are now posting very boldly, especially about the role of race in this primary.

Like many DUers, I have done some reading at Conservative Cave and seen posters there bragging about having registered multiple "moles" years ago. I have no reason to think that is the only group of RWers who have done that.

I also suspect that some DUers who do post often have registered under more than one name, using one name for their "run of the mill" posting and another (or others) for more controversial posts--the classic sock scenario I--possibly all of us-- have seen on other boards.

I strongly recommend against suspecting everyone who seems to average very few posts a year, yet jumps into the thick of some Bernie Hillary argument and/or some racial argument. But, I do recommend bearing in mind that all posters are not what they say they are.

My deepest and apologies to you DUers who seldom post, but who are completely sincere when you do post. I do know you exist. We all know that. But, we all also need to bear in mind that some people--some screen names, actually, post here chiefly to create mischief. The term "shit stirring" comes to mind. Do not fall for it or get embroiled in it or get hidden or banned for it.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. That is unfair

to those perfectly legitimate DUers who are more lurkers than posters. Everyone functions on the intertubez differently. You might want to re-think this OP.

[merrily]

2. My OP expressly excludes sincere lurkers--more than once--and even apologizes to them.

See paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the OP.

I don't think your reading of the OP or your comment about it is fair.

I am not going to debate it, though, but I am not deleting the OP, either. Nothing is wrong with it.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. It sounds more like a witch hunt to me.

But suit yourself.

[merrily]

4. Wow.

[snagglepuss]

26. How does a post that is simply advising people to be cautious

become in your eyes a witchhunt? That is completely irrational.

[merrily]

48. Thanks, snagglepuss. Glad most readers got it.

[Android3.14]

77. Sorry, but no.

Encouraging people to be cautious is almost (99.9999999 percent of the time) always good advice.

[iemitsu]

44. Not good enough.

I have been reading DU since the year 2000.
There are plenty of reasons for people to rarely post.
Do not disparage those who do not feel that they need always get their word in.
There are posters with many posts who are more suspect.

[merrily]

49. Not enough explanation about two different kinds of low count posters or apology for you? Ok.

[billymayshere]

66. This +1

I am one of those people and I have been a little more active here. No, I'm not a troll, just a lurker. I think that there are sock puppets on here with posts ranging from 0 to 25000.

[rhett o rick]

71. But that has nothing to do with her observation. I have also noted the sudden increase in low post

posters that seem to not care for Sen Sanders. That's an observation. There are sock puppets here for sure. Only MIRT has access to root them out.

[Catherina]

72. +1. It's not a witch hunt. I observed the same thing but

I think it happens every election cycle.

[merrily]

7. I can only refer you to my reply #2. I made several appropriate exclusions for sincere infrequent

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2015, 07:07 AM - Edit history (1)

posters.

This kind of thing has happened on DU and every other board I've ever posted on. Everyone knows about it, but telling people to be careful not to get banned on account of people who use socks is somehow wrong?

Claiming that warning DUers to be careful not to get hides and bans is in the same ocean as calling people white supremacists is ridiculous.

and, not that it matters, but I am female.

ETA. no clue what ct means.

[merrily]

32. I did NOT do any of that.

[snagglepuss]

45. Exaggerate much? Why are you determined to misunderstand

the OP? Not only did Merrily clearly state that she wasn't referring to all low posters but there is nothing accusatory in the OP, she simply advises people to be cautious about potential trolls.
Sheeesh.

[merrily]

50. Thanks. Sometimes, you wonder if you are reading the same thing some posters are.

And, as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.

[kath]

27. (She already beat me to it, but..) why do you assume this poster is a "sir"? I get really, really

Sick of people here automatically assuming that all posters are male. Women DO post here, you know.

Sheesh.

(I hate the generic "he" and really wish that English had a genderless pronoun. But in the meantime, it is really not hard work around the generic he and to construct sentences by using "that poster" or s/he, etc.)

[merrily]

34. I think most DUers are women, but maybe my perception is skewed.

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2015, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[djean111]

6. I just ignore all the "I am a big Bernie supporter, BUT" and "I really like Bernie, BUT" crapola.

And the really really concerned for Bernie and his poor delusional supporters dung.

Best not to try and call out or define DUers, also best to recognize the obvious bullshit and snicker and move on.
Also ignore the Take the Pledge stuff - always from a Hillary supporter, seems to me - and cute little chart-y thingies that hilariously "prove" she is very Progressive and Liberal.

In fact, I rarely click on anything with Hillary in the title, because I don't really care, or see the need to care. I am only mildly offended by the attitude that Bernie's supporters, and Bernie, evidently don't use the internet or teh Google, and that Bernie knows nothing about Congress. I guess it comforts them. Like, ya know, a lack of organization prevents Bernie from drawing big crowds.

This election is boiling down to money and grim intent vs issues and ideals. IMO.

[merrily]

8. Thanks. Excellent point. Avoid call outs of individuals. First, you may be wrong. Second, you'll

probably get the very type of hide my OP is trying to warn against.

Another excellent point: ignore the "I support Bernie Butters." I posted something like that myself. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6600340

BUT....Bernie doesn't know anything about Congress? That's rich! Gee, how did I miss that canard?

Bernie, who founded the House Progressive Caucus practically as soon as got there? Who has been in Congress for 24 years, 16 in the House and 8 in the Senate, getting elected again and again without any money to speak of and without the campaign backing of either major party? Actually getting bills and amendments that he wrote passed (which I don't think Hillary managed)? Bernie, whose negotiation with McCain is a case study at the Brookings Institute in how to deal across the aisle?

My, my. Say anything, but not the one starring John Cusack.

[djean111]

9. Oh, didn't you know? Only Hillary can work with the GOP Congress!

After all, she will see them and hear from them quite a lot, attending or responding to the friendly committees they spend their time on, investigating Benghazi and emailgate. Doesn't matter if both things are total bullshit - they indicate the hate that the GOP have for Hillary. She won't have it any easier than Obama did, IMO.

[merrily]

11. I don't think being investigated by Republicans reeeeallly counts as working with Republicans.

So far, I have not found a bill or amendment that she wrote (as opposed to one she co-sponsored) that became law. Was she incapable of managing that? Was she trying to avoid managing that? No clue.

However, as I said, Brookings made a case study out of the McCain Sanders negotiation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027637

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128030853 (Bernie Sanders is a loud, stubborn socialist. Republicans like him anyway.)

[artislife]

43. And all the "helpful" advice

I believe there are OPs and posts that are to poke the bear.

How many of you think this OP

is aimed at poking the bear and any further posts are to poke the bear even more?

The point of poking the bear is to get an outrageous reaction and then run to the village screaming about how outrageous the bear is.

I think it is blatent, I think it is subtle and I have thought in the past that some posters "sound" like others and they tend to come to each others aid.

I think if we "listen" to what is really being posted, we can see someone who weighs in infrequently v those who are single topic members with a force behind their words.

Of course, for some one topic is paramount.

We do have to give the benefit of the doubt, but if we face it multiple times and it still feels odd, go with your gut.

Though, we women tend to do that anyway! Oops, did I just let us down with that??

[merrily]

51. As long as people don't get entangled or entrapped or baited to the point where

they get a hide, suspension or ban, I'm good.

It's not about IDing people.

[GoneFishin]

59. I have noted quite a few Poke The Bear OPs. The fake concerns for Bernie with anti-Bernie spin

subtly woven into the text, etc..

I totally understand innocent lurkers though. I lurked for about 8 years before my first post.

I have also ignored posts which smelled like bait posts intended to provoke.

I don't see any harm in advising caution.

[eridani]

81. There really is such a thing as an internet topic junkie

That is, people who don't hang out at specific generic boards, but search daily for anything on their main topic of interest. I think if you check topics like TPP, you'll find a couple who showed up frequently for that topic, posted little on other topics, and won't be around until that fight heats up again.

[Divernan]

10. Your observations are spot on.

When I see snarky &/or passive-aggressive &/or hostile &/or obscenely worded posts from someone with a low post count, I routinely check their profile to see how long they've been around. When there is a glaring disconnect between years on DU and number of posts, I do consider the possibilities you pointed out re moles or someone having multiple accounts. I read their posts with a grain of salt, so to speak. It would be politically naive not to. Karl Rove may have been the father of political dirty tricks, but his heritage lives on, and most especially re candidates of any party who put winning at all costs above ethical campaigning.

This is the most critical Democratic primary I've seen in my time as a Dem. That goes back to my first vote, which was cast for JFK. With so much at stake for the One Percenters/Wall Street/MIC/Big Pharma/Big Oil-TPP-Keystone-fracking crowd, odds are overwhelming that there will be more dirty tricks than usual this time around. To argue that DU would not be the target of disruptors is to say that DU is meaningless and ineffectual. I wouldn't be putting in time posting here if I believed that.

Forewarned is forearmed.

[merrily]

12. Thank you. I was trying to emphasize not getting a hide or a ban.

[PATRICK]

14. As an old poster

in more ways than one and the number of whose posts are determined by a hard nighttime work schedule etc. I even understand this problem in talk groups outside DU. If I had an alter ego to choose it would be someone like H2O Man with a Rude Pundit subconscious. I do find and rarely bother commenting on people who tee on on anger's green where almost anything they don't like is some middle finger aimed at them or their candidate.

I too find it strange that anyone with that temperament could possibly resist piling up post counts no matter the special stimulation of primaries. It doesn't seem likely unless they don't even read DU except for election heat. Can't mind read and obviously I can't read the face or the bank account.

But not being God it is just another caveat into fueling or recognizing disruptive non-productive cat fights when so much is at stake to build up and influence the only party the people has to save their very lives. One discipline is to actively love your enemies and talk that talk. Then the anger can burn itself out over there at least. The sadistic joy at belittling one's opponents and stretching all discussions to make that happen may seem justified by "victory" at the polls- but it does not win actual votes nor hearts and minds. Trump's your real candidate then. A loser.

As for trolls and plots, screw 'em. Let them tombstone themselves in furious escalation. As for fighting back, temper or redo your steel with truth.

The worst have all passion while the best lack conviction. Writers and painters have puzzled over the tremendous bravura and self promotion of the talentless. I think it is all about the fact that people who are genuine, truth seeking and compassionate all the way through to their thoughts and convictions(hopefully good actions) are pained and troubled by the imperfect- the unattainable. The permanently immature are dazzled by the beatific vision of themselves in a pig sty of fantasies. The primary process is just one popular human endeavor that ferments the slush pile. People who are more cold blooded operatives are still that kind of person, only sadder and more corrupt.

We can only control what we say and that never as well as we should- but we must try- often without joy or support. As much as this OP is wasting some time on a partial attempt to understand, this is one thing each of us has to continue to do- with or without the critiques of others.

Boy that sounds pompous, but I guess I will hit the button anyway.

[merrily]

15. Thank you for your post. It is amazing and not at all pompous. I love it.

I don't care if trolls tombstone themselves. It's them getting the rest of us to tombstone ourselves that I am warning against.

Finally, a couple of my favorite posters do lurk most of the time and have low post counts after a number of years. The bs here doesn't draw them in often, but they do read. So, again, I am not in any way implying that low post count = insincere.

[Divernan]

18. Great phrase:"tremendous bravura & self promotion of the talentless"

I don't think your post sounded pompous at all. I particularly appreciated two of your descriptions:

(1) "The sadistic joy at belittling one's opponents and stretching all discussions to make that happen may seem justified by "victory" at the polls- but it does not win actual votes nor hearts and minds. Trump's your real candidate then. A loser."

(2) "The worst have all passion while the best lack conviction. Writers and painters have puzzled over the tremendous bravura and self promotion of the talentless."

It's gotten so old and tired - posting (with documenting links) HRC's actions while first lady, senator or Secretary of State, is "rebutted" with non-factual accusations that we must hate Hillary. That is followed by lengthy distortions and outright lies about Bernie Sanders. I had to laugh at one of the most ardent & hostile HRC supporters who opined/bragged that a lot of the Sanders supporters must have her on "hide" because they weren't responding to her. I learned early on in life that there is no point in debating a true believer, of whatever stripe.

It's gonna be a long primary this time around, for sure, but I am delighted and encouraged by the national response to Bernie wherever he goes to speak, as well as the positive response from my friends and relatives in my little corner of the world, as well as the nationwide scattering of my FB friends. I'm looking forward to hearing from one old friend who heard Bernie last night in Seattle.

On a personal note, I empathize with you having a night time work schedule. Post-retirement, (at age 70) I tried working at a US postal service distribution center on a night-time shift. Temporary/part time classification, so no benefits. 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. shifts. Very physically demanding. That also involved driving on the turnpike - 1 hour commute each way. Most of us night workers were retirees taking what work we could find to supplement social security, or younger workers who had full time day jobs as well. We used to joke we'd never get by without Coke/coffee for the caffeine and Advil for the sore muscles. Good co-workers, good supervisors, but I lasted about 6 weeks. Hang in there!

[merrily]

52. Another great post.

Whodda thunk I'd see such great posts on this thread?

[dreamnightwind]

13. Agreed, with both of you

I am an 11 year (or so, didn't look it up) poster with a low post count, but I took no offense to the OP. It was careful to say some of us (probably most IMHO) are legit.

I've seen more actions that don't seem legit to me since the primaries started than any other time I've been on DU. My opinion is Sanders has some people worried, people that have a lot of resources.

And I don't know who Bernie Butters is (I kid) but some Bernie supporters are obvious fakes. Some of them have eventually outed themselves (mean Bernie supporters made them change to Hillary, yeah right, they were kicking him from the start), and there are still some around who spend much of their time stabbing Bernie in the back while claiming to support him.

Careful out there indeed. I would especially be careful about agreeing with over-the-top assertions of things we don't know for a fact by new posters, we really don't know much for certain about what's going on, just that some things don't make sense taken at face value, and some of these newbies are probably laying traps for us. I speculate as much as anyone, identify it as such though so I assume that is safe.

[merrily]

16. Thanks dreamnightwind. IMO, you are a perfect example of an infrequent, sincere poster.

As of today, under 3100 posts after more than 8 years. I've never seen you "stirring shit" and I admire your posts.

Thanks for understanding my objective is to keep people like you and me from getting sucked into something that would end up with us banned and the troll surviving.

[dreamnightwind]

17. Only 8 years?

I guess I lurked for quite awhile before registering, I read a lot. I know I started hanging out here around the time of the '04 election. Back then I was somewhat intimidated and just tried to learn as much as possible, seemed like there were many extremely knowledgable and articulate posters here, nowadays less so, many have left or been banned. Some remain, of course, present company included.

Was just watching some of the later Seattle event, that really improved my mood, so much enthusiasm! Need to keep the shenanigans in perspective, his campaign is very much alive and well.

[merrily]

19. I've noticed that as well. Many of the more knowledgeable posters are gone.

I learned from them and still learn from quite a few, but the numbers have dwindled.

Thanks for your kind words, but I was a very low info voter. I assumed, without thinking, that just voting Democratic would solve everything. I've been learning as I go. I learn from others here and I learn by researching to make posts of my own.

I am glad you got comfortable enough to post.

[mak3cats]

20. On behalf of all long-term, low posters...

...I'll accept your cautions, because I've seen what you're talking about. But as one of those who could be considered "suspect," the fact that I've been around for more than a decade (and my star membership has never lapsed) entitles me to be a shit stirrer any time I want!

[merrily]

22. Thanks for understanding and for the humor, too.

Last edited Sun Aug 9, 2015, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[merrily]

23. I am as worried about you and dreamnightwind getting entangled as I am about someone with 70,000

posts getting entangled. I think we've all seen what I am talking about and not only at DU, either. It's a function of message boards. I was once on a tiny board of a group of posters who came together after a huge board we had been on folded and the trolls showed up there, too!

[carolinayellowdog]

21. real disruption, misdirected suspicion

Your disclaimers are appreciated, but still the post merits a comment from a very longterm member who has observed the drastic increase in incivility here post-2006.

I've noticed the same phenomenon you describe, but as a 13-year, 3000 post DUer must protest that you are suspecting the wrong demographic. Seems far more those who joined in Obama's first term and now have only hundreds of posts who are suddenly showing up to stir shit. It wasn't until Democrats gained power in DC that the caver disruption problem really skyrocketed. And it wasn't until primary season arrived that these sleeper-disruptors were activated.

Factoring out a couple of years when I fell completely silent, my post count averages out to a post a day for a decade. (Too many of them reacting and responding to griefers and trolls who should have been ignored.) Everything is relative, I suppose, but there are very few things I've ever done daily for a decade, so this "low post count" phrase leaves me scratching my head wondering HOW IN HELL people can get to a hundred thousand posts and have time to eat, sleep, and clean house. The great majority of aggressors who do nothing but foment mutual hostility seem to me to be those with very high post counts-- as if being a griefer is a job for them. But they are obvious fodder for the ignore list, whereas these sleeper types come in under the radar.

[merrily]

24. Your point that there are high post count trolls is very valid. I think, though, of us who post

daily or close to it know who they are. We see the post, check the name and say, "Oh, him/her. Moving on....."

My process is not to notice the number of posts and get suspicious. My process is to note a post that, to me, strikes a wrong note, then to look at the profile. Sometimes, it's not just one post, either, but ten or more posts on a single thread. Not every single time, but when a post sets off an alarm. And in recent months, looking at a profile after a post or series of posts has set off my alarm has seemed to result in seeing a lot of posters who registered long ago, maybe as far back as 2001 or 2003 with relatively few posts.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. There are quite a number of active moles these days

I would name a few, but we all know how that ends.

[merrily]

41. Excellent point. Let me underscore it: No callouts, please. That is exactly the kind of

response that could get one or more of us a hide.

djean posted the same and I agree then as well.

The whole object is not to get yourself a hide, a "forced vacation" or a ban--unless that is something you really want, which I can respect.

[BarbaRosa]

29. Speaking only for myself,

-been here since '01- unless I'm playing my bass I tend to absorb more sound than I put out. Heck I've been at DI for over a year and have amassed 17 posts by now.

I do understand about the shit disturbers.

[merrily]

39. Thank you for your understanding. We all understand--or should--that posting often

is not everyone's cup of tea. Also, not everyone can post often. People who are self-employed, retired, disabled, insomniac, etc. may be able to post a lot, but many people working regular jobs cannot. I am talking about people who come out of nowhere and post stuff that makes you go
to the extent that you do check the name, then the post count, then the profile to try to figure out what is going on. People who hate conflict seldom post like that.

[restorefreedom]

30. i am seriously starting to think

that the koch brothers and their minions have infiltrated pretty much everywhere, and are doing their best to take down bernie, destroy hillary, and fracture the progressive movement.

elections are always contentious. but this one has a bad stink to it

[merrily]

35. IMO, the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary did as well.

[SoapBox]

31. I absolutely understand your OP.

And what the fuck has happened to people's brains, that they can't understand your point?

I've noticed exactly what you pointed out...that huge influx of posters is low post count but have been members forever (I've looked too at the profiles because the posts "felt" odd.)

People have lost their minds.

[merrily]

36. I'm glad that you and most others who have posted understand.

All I am saying is that I have been noticing this phenomenon during the last several months, so please don't get sucked in and get yourself in trouble. I am every bit as worried about a low count, long time sincere DUers like dreamnightwind getting sucked into something that hurts him as I am about someone with 100,000 posts getting hurt.

Oh, well. Moving on...

[Stellar]

33. I've been here at DU seven years ago yesterday and called a newbie or a troll.

I've been called a Hillary plant, or that I know nothing about Bernie Sanders and then they began to list his history, all the good stuff that he's doing or talked about...you know, the usual stuff.

I've even been damned near cursed out about stuff I've posted to others here and asked to leave by members of DU and threatened to have me kicked out of DU because of things I was trying to explain. So then, I usually go back deeper underground and just read different threads or post articles that I found to be interesting. I hate conflict.

[merrily]

38. Thanx. Hating conflict is indeed a reason many long time, sincere lurkers cite for posting so

infrequently. I understand that, too.

A post that calls you a troll or a plant can be alerted on and that is exactly one kind of hide-able response I am trying to caution against.

[drmeow]

37. Interestingly

posts like this are part of the reason why I have <2700 post in 8 years. I started to write a different response than this one but then deleted it because I thought, why bother? I don't really feel like getting embroiled in the inevitable back and forth of defensiveness and accusation which was bound to result (and, yes, I realize posting this anyway is therefore contradictory).

I will say one thing, however. In 2001 no one had any clue that DU would grow to what it has become. I find it very hard to believe that someone would think it warranted registering multiple "moles" which they have maintained for 14 years just to bring them out NOW. Even assuming they did plant a mole in 2001, I find it hard to believe they would have been able to keep that mole under cover through two Obama elections!

"Shit stirring" happens - not falling for it or getting embroiled in it or getting hidden or banned for it is something DU members ALWAYS need to be vigilant about (a big part of the reason I tend to lurk rather than post). But why a warning against that needs to be prefaced with a lengthy warning about a theoretical "class" of posters which is likely to be a very small minority of DU members (if any, see above) and which has the potential (and has succeeded) in offending what is more likely to be a much larger group of legitimate DU members is not clear to me. All this OP needed to say was this:

"Sanders Group members--all DUers, really: Please be cautious.

The term "shit stirring" comes to mind. Do not fall for it or get embroiled in it or get hidden or banned for it.

Some DUers who do post often may have registered under more than one name, using one name for their "run of the mill" posting and another (or others) for more controversial posts--the classic sock scenario I--possibly all of us-- have seen on other boards.

I do recommend bearing in mind that all posters are not what they say they are.

Bear in mind that some people--some screen names, actually, post here chiefly to create mischief."

The rest of the post feels to me like a creepy mildly paranoid defense of bias, was unnecessary for getting the point across, and managed to offend sincere DU members despite that not being the OP's intention.

[merrily]

40. I used 2001 as an example, though I have seen several of those. It could also be 2003 or 2008. It's

about a pattern of behavior, not a particular year or post count.

If you peruse Conservative Cave, you will see many posts discussing having created multiple moles at DU, with some remaining, even though others have been banned. The year the "moles" were created is irrelevant. Moreover, CC is not alone in that type of behavior and DU is not the only board on which it happens. I've seen on every board I've posted on and so did others who were posting with me. The recs and replies to this thread suggest other DUers, including those with low post counts, have noticed the same thing I have. Not sure why some respondents are brand new about it.

Re: the rest of your post, no comment.

[rjsquirrel]

42. lol right

I'm sure someone waited a decade before revealing their trollish internet to divide and conquer a relatively inconsequential website. The dastardly schemers! Imagine that, waiting through two whole election victories by Obama so they could disrupt a Clinton/Sanders primary contest with a pie fight. Maybe they registered quietly in say, 2005, as college student sleeper infiltrators. And now they are 33 and have two kids but their plan will finally be realized.

Paranoia runs deep on DU.

[merrily]

53. Please see replies 2, 40 and 45.

[olddots]

46. good post

thought provoking .

[merrily]

54. Thanks. Just don't get let yourself hidden, suspended or banned. That's pretty much all I'm saying.

[totodeinhere]

47. A lot of people with low post counts simply don't have the time to hang out

at DU all the time and run up big post counts. I suspect that many of the people with big post counts are retired people or people on disability or whatnot who have the time. And God bless them. I am in no way criticizing them.

But then there are a lot of good people who would like to participate more who are working two or even three jobs just to make ends meet, or who are full time students who also have full time jobs, or single mothers trying to work and raise a family at the same time. They just don't have enough hours in the day to do everything they want to, and coming to DU is a luxury that they can only enjoy on rare occasions.

When I see people with six figure post counts I am amazed. Where do they ever get the time? But as I said earlier there are some people who for whatever reason have more time on their hands than others.

[merrily]

55. Thanks. I stressed that my OP was not about sincere low infrequent posters

and I was pleased that and most infrequent posters who replied got my intent.

It's about a pattern of behavior, low count per year on average being only one element of the pattern. Most of all, the OP is about being careful not to get yourself banned. I'm sorry some didn't get that.

[totodeinhere]

69. Yes, I get the intent of your OP. My reply was more a commentary on the state of affairs in this

country where so many people are stressed out working such long hours just to make enough money to scrape by and avoid going under.

And I'm sure that as a fellow Bernie supporter you share that concern. And it's a shame that some good people who have a lot to contribute to DU aren't able to do it as much as they would like.

[still_one]

56. In my experience, disrupters who are NOT really Democrats, or Progressives, eventually show themselves

[merrily]

57. Thanks. This is true. However, my OP is not about ID'ing them. It's about us not getting baited to

the point at which we get ourselves a hide, suspension or ban. And that can happen to one or more of us before they reveal themselves.

[still_one]

58. Good point

[merrily]

60. Thanks!

[Lil Missy]

61. This is really tacky. n/t

[merrily]

62. Unprovoked, substance-free, analysis-free slam.

[Lil Missy]

63. That's interesting.

You write a tacky call out of low post members, and then you take a swipe at me for being a Hillary supporter? Wow. I don't think your tacky OP or subsequent swipe at me for something completely unrelated and irrelevant to my comment has anything to do with you being a Bernie supporter. It does, however say a lot about you.

[merrily]

64. Try reading the OP and the thread for comprehension. Or don't.

[mak3cats]

68. This low poster wasn't offended, why are you?

And how does "Unprovoked, substance-free, analysis-free slam" translate into swiping at you for being a Hillary supporter? A bit touchy, are we?

(By the way, the Hillary group is that-a-way.)

[rhett o rick]

70. It's very interesting who gets "offended" by the OP. It wasn't a call-out. Far from it.

It was an honest observation. One I noticed myself. I also noticed that there are a lot of low post Sanders supporters that just disappear.

[Sunlei]

65. they're lonely on those other nearly dead message boards.

Could be fun for some with the free time to go there and stir their pots a little.

Though I do think that's a waste of ones online time

And who knows some of them could be changing their minds or coming to their senses, finally.

[merrily]

67. I agree.

It's not a preference that I understand--pretending to be something you are not, in order to post somewhere you are not wanted.

I post to say what I think, not to hide what I think. For me, the latter would be extremely unpleasant.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[senz]

73. I fit your "suspect" demographic in several respects.

I've been a member of DU for several years but didn't started posting with any frequency until around June/July of this year. Lately I've wondered several times if you, Merrily, have something against me. Maybe this is over-sensitivity/paranoia or maybe there's something to it. So I'm going to give you (and whomever) a little background on senz.

I'm passionate about democracy as the best means for "little people" like us to effect change in our country. Thus, am fascinated by politics. As a liberal Democrat who communicates far better in writing than speaking, I was thrilled when the Internet developed to the point that like-minded people could share thoughts and ideas in writing. This was mid-to-late 90s, AOL, dial-up and "use groups." During the Clinton impeachment, I was so incensed by what was happening that co-workers and other real-life associates were starting to look askance at me. The peacefulness and politeness of good liberal folk left me feeling undefended and frustrated. It seemed we always pulled our punches while righties tore into everything and succeeded. When I discovered a (then) popular news/political website with the balls to lash back at Ken Starr, et. al., and righties in general, it was total relief. It actually made me feel safer to know that liberals were capable of fighting back. When I discovered that that particular site had an amazing, multifaceted discussion forum, I was almost intimidated by the possibilities. And so I got hooked on political discussion fora/forums. A handful of bad experiences -- one quite scary -- caused by misplaced trust and perhaps risky behavior taught me to be very cautious and protect my real life identity at all costs. But I have never posted under multiple identities at any site. Just don't have the mental/social complexity.

Well forums come and forums go. Since I let myself get attached to other members, each time a forum folded or decided on "real names" or went pay, or whatever, it was a loss. I often argue w/myself about why I should need to communicate online. I had been aware of DU for many years (I'm guessing 10) and joined several years ago. However, I never got into posting here because it looked kind of shallow with all the one-line posts and smilies -- did not read threads closely and frequently enough to grasp that it's not shallow at all. I also couldn't deal with the format (it's getting easier) and had no idea how much in-fighting there is. The "alert" system struck me as weird at first (I was banned from one group w/i days of becoming active) but now I see it's an alternative to moderation -- and after spending too much time on a heavily and arbitrarily moderated forum, the freedom to swear out loud here without funny little spellings is extremely liberating.

Okay, I can't think of anything else to say right now. If you have mistrusted me, I'm sorry, but if you have, you've been mistaken. I am not a troll or a mole or whatever. I'm passionate about politics in general and Bernie Sanders in particular. If I get too excited, I apologize. But I don't try to "bait" anyone and hate to be baited by others. Okay, that's it. Sorry for the length.

[merrily]

76. I haven't mistrusted you.

[senz]

78. Thanks, merrily. I appreciate that.

I've felt nothing but respect for your uplifting activity on behalf of Bernie. It's nice to know I haven't offended you.

[leftcoastmountains]

74. I don't understand your concern. What difference does it make?

But I'm new here because of Bernie. I lurked for a couple of months then joined. So I also don't understand all
the drama between the Clinton and Sanders camp. If they don't agree with you so what? I'm not going to try to
convince anybody to switch. Sanders is his own best advocate. I tell people to go to his videos. If they aren't convinced
so be it. But I'm really good at ignoring people I don't like. I'm also convinced that all trolls are people who don't have
anything better going on in their lives. When I recognize one I don't bother reading their posts.

Just my two cents.

[merrily]

75. Please see the last two or three lines of the OP.

[Z_California]

79. I get it

No reason to freak out over being advised to use caution.

But....my post count is in the low hundreds because I grew tired of being called out for my low post count. Mostly I just read and "Ignore" now.

[merrily]

80. Thanks. The responses on this thread, plus the pm's I got from people who did not want

to post, were enough to convince me that I was not imagining things. Plus, I worded my OP very carefully to try to ensure that people did not think I was speaking of all those with low post counts. A poster I especially love has a very low post count because he or she would just rather not deal with the fighting. However, some people read "low post count" and nothing else mattered.

Whaddaygonnadoo?