I was afraid they would be mobbed.

Fire marshall's won't let more than a 100 or so in overflow areas no matter how big the area is.

Thanks in advance.

They planned for crowd control.
The massive crowds will be allowed at proper venues later on.

And thank goodness that we're protected from NYC_SKP.

So he was ejected for showing his ass.
But no worries, dog whistling is still largely protected here.

Save it for the libertarians. It's a new world where women and POC are fucking over it.
The 20th century is over and you're going to get used to dealing with our voices.

Other than the word "book" was in used in both.

Pretty low stuff.

so why would someone bother responding to that, lol.

Which is fair. He did break the law.

banned for the reasons given by the site Admin from their own private internet domain with well-known TOS standards.

from abusive language and attacks, but if it's done here to the right people she deems the proper targets, the abuse is just fine. It's really lame.

The snide derisive shit here reminds me of no one more than Sarah Palin. She knew how to broadcast the idea that "some"'people should not be uppity and want "special treatment" too. Same thing.

and had those same irrational tones that were cringe-worthy about making something out of nothing just to keep up the fake Clinton talking points. And you totally nailed it on the snideness -- name-calling is A-Okay as long you are targeting the right people.

In DU, and Texas, respectively.

Can you state what bothers you about the rules designed to reduce hostile bigotry here without using an analogy designed to avoid saying anything? I've never seen you give anyone a straight answer. So rude!

What's fair, is fair.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6789299

Has to bring it back to the topic.
Which is what was he alluding to about "protecting" people here? That's some snide Libertarian type dog whistling. Deeply disrespectful to inclusive progressives- again.

Sid

Rude, Slimy, OTT and Ridiculous.

I'm thinking maybe you might be 20 something and THINK you've got it all figured out but you really don't.

Good planning by a capableTeam.

I am supporting Senator Sanders, but this is a silly thread about Secretary Clinton.

It's easy not to be PPRed on DU. Very easy. It's a choice.

Or a time out. Others have been.

It's not difficult at all to do. When the admins decide to ban someone, I assume they have a reason to do so. If I did something that was outrageous, particularly a vile insult directed at someone who is very likely to be the Democratic nominee for President, it would not surprise me at all to lose my posting privileges here permanently.

I don't do such things. I like DU, and I appreciate the chance to post here. Besides, it's not in my nature to call people names, especially vile sexist ones.

You miss that poster. I can understand that. As someone who was a target of his not-so-gentle ministrations, I don't miss him a lot. I am not an admin of this site. I have zero input into who stays and goes here.

My statement was that that poster could still be here. That is an absolutely true statement.

I would never alert on it, but it really does show a side of you that is disappointing.

It's such a put down. It's actually a personal attack on a huge number of people here disguised as "concern".

Not by a long shot. Attacks on Hillary Clinton by Sanders supporters are happening all over the Internet.

It's disappointing to you? I'm sorry to hear that. Many people agreed with me in that thread. It's a discussion on a discussion forum. I attacked nobody. Am I concerned? Yes, I am. I have many concerns about the upcoming election. Chief of those is a concern that we might lose the presidential election to a Republican. I'm very concerned about that possibility. And rightly so, I think.

I don't mean to disappoint you, but I violated no DU rules in that post. I don't know anyone alerted on it. It's quite possible that it did. Many of my posts get alerted on, I'm sure. It's been a long time, though, that one got hidden.

has a snowballs chance in heck of getting elected in the general election, without being called misogynistic or worse.

Has anyone said you couldn't? In fact you just did. Your post still stands and you still have posting privileges. I rest my case.

on other sites that he's been called a liberal, a DUer, and "much, much worse" and that he's "none of those"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2705446

I go by his behavior here.

I go by his behavior here.

Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2015, 05:39 AM - Edit history (1)

which is conservative, passive-aggressive, condescending "I like Bernie (really, I do), but" type of behavior.

It is damned easy to be hidden, depending upon the momentum over time.

Freedom of expression that doesn't hurt anyone was NYC_SKP's choice for years and sometimes it was better, but never to the point of being PPRed.

I've had a few (very few) posts hidden. Each time, I have learned from the experience. It has been a long time since the last one. I will not comment further about what doesn't hurt anyone, though. We disagree, though.

about gays if I recall correctly.

I'm glad they didn't but perhaps you should get off the high horse.

I dont think that Mineralman could have been banned for that.

I didn't join DU until 2008. I've been here for almost 7 years now. It's been over 9 years since I posted anything at that other website. I've apologized for posts that were offensive that I made there, and have posted nothing here that would have gotten me banned here. People found a few posts from FR that I made and repeated them out of context. That's fine. I wrote them. I even used the same screen name I use here all those years ago. I tried for a long time to explain them, but don't do that any more. I have apologized for them, though.

I've posted here for 7 years with over 10,000 posts each year. I've had maybe five posts hidden in all that time. I don't disguise my identity here, and people can visit the DFL precinct website I maintain here in Minnesota. They can visit a blog on web content, as well, just by clicking a link in my signature line. If they wish, they can even find out how to contact me at either of those links.

My posts are searchable, and anyone can look at them. I wrote them all. I'm not paid to write here or on any discussion forum. I am who I am. I am who I say I am. So, you bring up what I wrote over 9 years ago. Actually, about 11 years ago for the posts you mention. There's even a website where those posts are cataloged in a hidden forum.

It's all been said before. I'm here. I post here. I will stay here. I don't post on any other political forums. Just DU, and that's been true for a very long time. From time to time, someone or another will bring up that old stuff. Normally, I just ignore that. This time, I'm not ignoring it.

If I do something that warrants being banned here on DU, then I expect to be banned.

In the DU TOS, it clearly states that someone can be banned "just because we don't like you." "We" being the admins.

It's not my website. I'm just a guest here like everyone else. The Meta Forum is closed. This was all hashed out over there multiple times. I'm not going to participate in any more history searches.

I feel fortunate to be here, too. I follow the guidelines of this place. I will continue to do exactly that.

I have nothing to do with that. They chose. It could easily have been avoided.

The admins are the only ones who can PPR a long-time DUer, and they can do it for whatever reasons they choose. As the TOS says, "You take your chances."

More than that I can't add, frankly.

but it's good to remember that admin has made it clear that the lack of locks isn't a litmus test:

If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

I have nothing to do with who stays and who goes on DU. So, I can't answer your question. You can ask in ATA, though. Maybe you'll get an answer there.

Still, as it says in the DU TOS, "you take your chances." You can read the entire TOS at the link at the bottom of any page on DU. I didn't write it. I have nothing to do with administrative decisions here, so I'm the wrong person to ask such questions.

that it was easy to stay - not the admins. I've just pointed out quite a few who commmitted the same offense he did & are still here.

It's not really playing fair to pile on with it's all his fault, because it is so easy to stay here, and then when confronted with people still here who said exactly the same things, that you know nothing I'd have to ask the admins.

Very easy. I didn't notice anyone in your list who used that terminology in connection with Hillary Clinton. Did you?

Personally, I wouldn't use that word or plays on that word to refer to anyone. Ever. It's a vile insult to all women. Taking it farther, I would ban anyone summarily who did from any site that I owned or administered. But this is not my website. I don't make such decisions here.

It's easy to stay here. You simply have to avoid being over the top with your language. You have to avoid personal attacks on others. You can't go too far in name-calling of prominent Democrats. Sometimes, people get away with it, but it's always a chancy thing. If you don't do it, though, you don't get banned for not doing it. Easy.

The DU TOS is really, really simple. While you might be able to get away with pushing the limits sometimes, you're walking a fine line if you do that. At any time, you may step over the line and find yourself unable to post here any longer. If you don't push the limits of the TOS, though, it's easy to stay here.

What's the limit? I do not know. As I said, I have nothing to do with banning anyone.

In other words he directed it at the wrong person.

If it is language which should not be used here, people using it should be consistently PPRd, and people making similarly offensive statements about women (generally) and using LGBT people as an insult should be as well - since those violate the TOS as well.

I didn't say that enforcement of the TOS was even here. It's not. I still maintain that it's very easy to stay here. Most people never violate any of the guidelines on DU. Some people insist on pushing the limits. If you push the limits, it's not easy to stay here. You could find yourself banned at any moment. If you follow the guidelines, though, you have nothing to worry about.

I'm just commenting on what I've observed here. Your examples are not equivalent, frankly. Yes, they use the same spoonerism, but most were from some time ago. DU is constantly evolving.

Not to mention that every one of them I checked (which was most of them) are still here - and at least one of them is taking pot shots at NYC_SKP.

And what is evolving is that NYC_SKP directed it at the wrong person. Unfortunately, such comments - along with misogynistic statements and bigoted statements which use being LGBT as an insult routinely survive the jury - and the admin's response is essentially "Yeah, it's bad. Fix it yourselves."

I know that following the guidelines on this site is a pretty good way to stay here. Not following them means that "you take your chances." I still maintain that it's very easy to stay in good standing on DU. Anyone should be able to do it.

Another ridiculous thread.

Keep trying.



Sid

Try the search function.



JM

His hatred for Hillary, like that of much of the fringe left, was palpable.

I was happy to see that misogynistic asshat get the granite pizza. In fact, I was the very first rec on the thread announcing his banning.



Sid

beating dead horses. Not sure what the pay off is.

Did they advertise?

and I will leave it at that....

Were there some nits that missed picking???

Made a large chunk of Manhattan a parking lot.
I was looking on Bernie's site a couple weeks back and he had nothing planned in NYC. Would love to see what sort of crowd he draws here.

I don't see where anyone else could have stood in that area.

The old saying is true though and the OP did not disappoint on that.

It was a very well-attended and well-managed event.

They must have given away the right number of tickets to fill the place, without causing "pandemonium".

A well organized event!

Sid

The population once seemed so much more ethnically diverse. The attendees look like the people from Burlington, but maybe we need to see other photos...

Damn I love you! That is perfect.

not 4000

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-bernie-sanders-take-the-burlington-revolution-national

This was at Triangle Park, home of the Dayton Tirangles and the first NFL game ever.



Granted, there was no elbow room and the three-hour wait to access the park over a walkway from Island Park may have seemed impressive, but meh. No wonder Obama was so soundly defeated.

a larger venue used by Obama. Obama and Clinton aren't competing in this race.

My point was that Obama was campaigning in the epicenter of a swing state late in the GE and that he and Biden "only" drew 9,500 participants. I thought that it was obvious that it was at max capacity (plus overflow on the walking bridge and the adjoining island).

It's a sleight at the ridiculous and desperate meme that geography be damned, headcount is the only useful statistic.

....but the outdoor venue was packed.

Also, as has been mentioned, Obama and Hillary are not running against each other this year.

in NYC we call an event this this "the weekend"

and his posts after the Hebdo murders were worse. A reactionary conservative, of course he'd hate Hillary. The OP you are citing was vile in so many ways for so many reasons.

I support Bernie Sanders and do not in any way support NYC_SKP and intensely disliked that poster for many many months, I was very happy when they finally banned him. Just wanted to say that.

Hillary and Bernie attract more people than any Republican.

I think someone can point that out.

And that he was booted would make it unfair we could not come back after the event to discuss his OP to the effect that it was going to be a disaster.

Well, it wasn't. He was wrong. He was dumb to assume the campaign would fail to plan it.

But hey, when the umps are wearing the home team's ballcap, you gotta expect some questionable calls.

or you get booted.

Shit, if things were like you describe, anyone who linked the Rude Pundit would be banned in an instant.

Or used against a major Democratic candidate.

Even the B word is not allowed on DU.

journal he was so proud of it.

Like EarlG said.. "he thought he was being so clever.. he was not."

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

People can become too enthusiastic and expect too much as we saw in the Obama campaign of 2008.

Managing expectations and enthusiasm early on is an important key to controlling perceptions later on.

Hillary has been at this a long time. I think her team knows how to plan for a large event.

leaving that poster alone. He is not here to defend himself. Let it be!

he was wrong about a lot of things.

Hope he likes pizza.