Plucky DU poster sticks it to Skinner for anti-democratic policies!
I am enheartened that this DU poster stands up to Skinner and questions Skinner's suppression of democracy on this supposedly "DemocraticUnderground.com" Let Skinner live up to democratic standards or withdraw his faux democratic claims.
Here's the text of the post by "Conspirationalist"
Conspirationalist (3 posts) Wed Jan-05-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
153. "Kooky Tsunami Conspiracy Theories"
You know what I think? I think this site has too many rules. I've just read them all, my eyes started to glaze, and I think they're a little - excessive. I don't see why a Democratic site feels the need to be so prescriptive. Leave it to the Republican sites - only funnily enough, most of them don't make such prescriptions; I suppose they feel it might offend the libertarians among them!
Now, admin johnnies, before you start posting nasty replies to me, or thinking about throwing me off, 1) I am new to this forum - might have viewed it once or twice before, but only signed up today and 2) I am a Brit. So you'd better be nice to me!
I'm a VERY progressive person; only of course I can't vote for any of your lot - nor, to be quite honest, would I want to! But I'm pretty well-informed; about America too; so basically I'm claiming that you want me on your blog! (Otherwise it's back to about.com!)
Yes, all this has relevancy to the current thread! Here it comes:-
I find it VERY interesting that "mainstream" journalism such as the NYT and Fox News is finding it so fascinating; what blog sites have to say about the issues of the day. And they obviously find all the non-mainstream forums threatening; after all, if there are all these blogs around, EVERYBODY's opinion has to be electronically "printed" somewhere; they can't just edit out the opinions they don't like and only publish a few carefully selected letters on their pages from professors, etc.
So good on all blogs! Especially the big ones that bring lots of people together!
But I find it also interesting - and discouraging - that basically all they could find to comment or "criticise" re the blogging phenomenon, was that blogs such as yours supposedly allowed "kooks" a point of expression! Whoever "kooks" may be! (Well, it had to be something they could trivialise, didn't it, in the usual patronising manner of such established "organs" - that being the right word! They would never expose certain blogs such as Freeper as being something really sinister and therefore worthy of worry, would they?)
But actually I'm cross with you guys, too, now, and I'm going to tell you why! (Noblesse oblige! This, by the way, is because I was a knight in one of my previous incarnations. And I feel you have offended against the rules of chivalry. Bear with me.)
For it was a very small posting, was it not, from a woman, who I am pretty sure uses her real name (lindashaw): as I do myself on another forum, incidentally. Entitled "One more dumb question regarding the earthquake in Asia." A VERY tentative, undogmatic, non-pompous little post; as many posts by women and those who feel themselves to have "non-mainstream" theories tend to be.
It is therefore both ironic and amusing that this small posting, plus one or two others, sparked off a furore, among several groups; narrow-minded Republicans, newspapers seeking to recapture their "we are the arbiters" status and their legitimacy, and narrow-minded admininstrators on this site.
The bit about asking people to alert you if anyone came on with any more "kooky tsunami theories" was what got ME! Who are YOU to say what exactly caused the earthquake, or whether or not it didn't have any environmental aggravators - global warming, for instance?
I followed a lot of links to find the "kooky theories" on your site; (and I hope I can find the one with the Reuters reference; pity you restrict your search function!) basically because I have a close friend (female) who has much the same idea.
I think you would be surprised how many people, both in Britain and America,and indeed worldwide, think something very similar, about the bunker-busting bombs in Iraq, for example, busting into fault lines and having something to do with the disaster in Bam. (Why there's even an old Superman movie plot, that's very much like that!)
What do you lot know about it? Where are your scientific credentials? Plate tectonics is a relatively new theory - don't you know that? It doesn't explain everything about the inner earth by any means. And there are always hundreds of other factors in a real-world situation. Saying plate tectonics is the only factor in earthquakes is like saying that weather is purely caused by cloud formations!
Anyway. I wouldn't have expected censorship of ideas to be found on a Democratic site; merely because you were sensitive because some silly Republicans and their pals at Fox would paint you as "kooks"! They think everybody is a kook that doesn't bow before Bush; don't you get that yet??
No, I would have expected to find censorship of certain ideas, and hostility in particular to more "alternative" dissenting points of view, environmental theories, etc, to be found on something like a Marxist site. Those with experience will know what THEIR prejudices are. Well, guys, if I want that, I can always go to www.wsws.org ! (Quite a fine site, by the way. But no blogs!)
You're supposed to be Democrats! You're not supposed to be censoring of anybody! Think liberal! Think wishy-washy! Think environmental. WHATEVER you do - don't pander to Republicans. And don't censor! Leave it to the dogmatists. Last time I looked, no liberal had a dogma. And that goes double for Democrats.
Here's a bit of shoddy journalism:
2. The Times failed to mention that the post was completely anonymous, and there is no way of knowing what the person's intention was. The person who posted it was not a donor, so we don't even have a name from a credit card. We have no way of knowing if the person who posted it was a misguided fellow liberal, or a conservative trolling to make us look bad. For all we know, the right-winger over at whizbang blog could have posted it himself. On the Internet, there's just no way of knowing.
The post was NOT completely anonymous - the person - a woman - used a proper name, what was probably her real name! (More than this blogger is prepared to do - though if you want to know what mine is, you'll find it on my e-mail address!)
They might not have been a donor - so obviously not a favoured contributor! So - do you think that just because a name isn't from a credit card, it isn't a real name? Why not use the usual internet style alias? I feel that the intention of this poster was HONORABLE.
This lady, lindashaw, who it is my desire to defend, is not a "fellow" of any kind, as you can see - she's a woman! (This is even emphasized in the avatar she has chosen for herself; males aren't usually so cute.)
I very much doubt that it was a "conservative troller" posing in the role, nor the "right-winger over at whizbang" - not unless they're VERY persistent and prepared to spend a lot of time fabricating posts; or some kind of master hacker who can hack unnoticed into your system and make it look as if a blogger has been on there longer than they have.
For, "Sherlocks", the poster in question has previously notched up 907 POSTS!!!!
Try checking what you're talking about!
Linda, whoever you are, I raise my hat to you. You're a freethinking liberal; forget the "misguided". It was an insult by an admin of this board; HE SHOULD APOLOGISE!!
(And he would if I ever went over there and to his office.)
Well I still say it's not very surprising, that a couple of patronising mainstream organs and Republican web sites should have made a whole lot of fuss about a few tentative comments about the earth being organic and possibly having "bones" - ie, a structural framework that might be disturbed or broken, wouldn't surprise ME!
And mentions of "Gaia" in other posts ... yes, that would excite the little anti-pagan bigots and snobs and slobs... Well of course it would! This society is a patriarchy! Gaia is a goddess archetype. Male chauvinism in yet another form.
And by the way, "Gaia", referring to the Earth as a system, or organism, is also a SCIENTIFIC theory, pioneered by Dr James Lovelock, which has to this day got a lot of respect and a large following.
So. There.
PS. Why is it possible to post "Smilies" in these threads - and yet I can find nothing to put in bold, underline, or italics?
Here's the text of the post by "Conspirationalist"
Conspirationalist (3 posts) Wed Jan-05-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
153. "Kooky Tsunami Conspiracy Theories"
You know what I think? I think this site has too many rules. I've just read them all, my eyes started to glaze, and I think they're a little - excessive. I don't see why a Democratic site feels the need to be so prescriptive. Leave it to the Republican sites - only funnily enough, most of them don't make such prescriptions; I suppose they feel it might offend the libertarians among them!
Now, admin johnnies, before you start posting nasty replies to me, or thinking about throwing me off, 1) I am new to this forum - might have viewed it once or twice before, but only signed up today and 2) I am a Brit. So you'd better be nice to me!
I'm a VERY progressive person; only of course I can't vote for any of your lot - nor, to be quite honest, would I want to! But I'm pretty well-informed; about America too; so basically I'm claiming that you want me on your blog! (Otherwise it's back to about.com!)
Yes, all this has relevancy to the current thread! Here it comes:-
I find it VERY interesting that "mainstream" journalism such as the NYT and Fox News is finding it so fascinating; what blog sites have to say about the issues of the day. And they obviously find all the non-mainstream forums threatening; after all, if there are all these blogs around, EVERYBODY's opinion has to be electronically "printed" somewhere; they can't just edit out the opinions they don't like and only publish a few carefully selected letters on their pages from professors, etc.
So good on all blogs! Especially the big ones that bring lots of people together!
But I find it also interesting - and discouraging - that basically all they could find to comment or "criticise" re the blogging phenomenon, was that blogs such as yours supposedly allowed "kooks" a point of expression! Whoever "kooks" may be! (Well, it had to be something they could trivialise, didn't it, in the usual patronising manner of such established "organs" - that being the right word! They would never expose certain blogs such as Freeper as being something really sinister and therefore worthy of worry, would they?)
But actually I'm cross with you guys, too, now, and I'm going to tell you why! (Noblesse oblige! This, by the way, is because I was a knight in one of my previous incarnations. And I feel you have offended against the rules of chivalry. Bear with me.)
For it was a very small posting, was it not, from a woman, who I am pretty sure uses her real name (lindashaw): as I do myself on another forum, incidentally. Entitled "One more dumb question regarding the earthquake in Asia." A VERY tentative, undogmatic, non-pompous little post; as many posts by women and those who feel themselves to have "non-mainstream" theories tend to be.
It is therefore both ironic and amusing that this small posting, plus one or two others, sparked off a furore, among several groups; narrow-minded Republicans, newspapers seeking to recapture their "we are the arbiters" status and their legitimacy, and narrow-minded admininstrators on this site.
The bit about asking people to alert you if anyone came on with any more "kooky tsunami theories" was what got ME! Who are YOU to say what exactly caused the earthquake, or whether or not it didn't have any environmental aggravators - global warming, for instance?
I followed a lot of links to find the "kooky theories" on your site; (and I hope I can find the one with the Reuters reference; pity you restrict your search function!) basically because I have a close friend (female) who has much the same idea.
I think you would be surprised how many people, both in Britain and America,and indeed worldwide, think something very similar, about the bunker-busting bombs in Iraq, for example, busting into fault lines and having something to do with the disaster in Bam. (Why there's even an old Superman movie plot, that's very much like that!)
What do you lot know about it? Where are your scientific credentials? Plate tectonics is a relatively new theory - don't you know that? It doesn't explain everything about the inner earth by any means. And there are always hundreds of other factors in a real-world situation. Saying plate tectonics is the only factor in earthquakes is like saying that weather is purely caused by cloud formations!
Anyway. I wouldn't have expected censorship of ideas to be found on a Democratic site; merely because you were sensitive because some silly Republicans and their pals at Fox would paint you as "kooks"! They think everybody is a kook that doesn't bow before Bush; don't you get that yet??
No, I would have expected to find censorship of certain ideas, and hostility in particular to more "alternative" dissenting points of view, environmental theories, etc, to be found on something like a Marxist site. Those with experience will know what THEIR prejudices are. Well, guys, if I want that, I can always go to www.wsws.org ! (Quite a fine site, by the way. But no blogs!)
You're supposed to be Democrats! You're not supposed to be censoring of anybody! Think liberal! Think wishy-washy! Think environmental. WHATEVER you do - don't pander to Republicans. And don't censor! Leave it to the dogmatists. Last time I looked, no liberal had a dogma. And that goes double for Democrats.
Here's a bit of shoddy journalism:
2. The Times failed to mention that the post was completely anonymous, and there is no way of knowing what the person's intention was. The person who posted it was not a donor, so we don't even have a name from a credit card. We have no way of knowing if the person who posted it was a misguided fellow liberal, or a conservative trolling to make us look bad. For all we know, the right-winger over at whizbang blog could have posted it himself. On the Internet, there's just no way of knowing.
The post was NOT completely anonymous - the person - a woman - used a proper name, what was probably her real name! (More than this blogger is prepared to do - though if you want to know what mine is, you'll find it on my e-mail address!)
They might not have been a donor - so obviously not a favoured contributor! So - do you think that just because a name isn't from a credit card, it isn't a real name? Why not use the usual internet style alias? I feel that the intention of this poster was HONORABLE.
This lady, lindashaw, who it is my desire to defend, is not a "fellow" of any kind, as you can see - she's a woman! (This is even emphasized in the avatar she has chosen for herself; males aren't usually so cute.)
I very much doubt that it was a "conservative troller" posing in the role, nor the "right-winger over at whizbang" - not unless they're VERY persistent and prepared to spend a lot of time fabricating posts; or some kind of master hacker who can hack unnoticed into your system and make it look as if a blogger has been on there longer than they have.
For, "Sherlocks", the poster in question has previously notched up 907 POSTS!!!!
Try checking what you're talking about!
Linda, whoever you are, I raise my hat to you. You're a freethinking liberal; forget the "misguided". It was an insult by an admin of this board; HE SHOULD APOLOGISE!!
(And he would if I ever went over there and to his office.)
Well I still say it's not very surprising, that a couple of patronising mainstream organs and Republican web sites should have made a whole lot of fuss about a few tentative comments about the earth being organic and possibly having "bones" - ie, a structural framework that might be disturbed or broken, wouldn't surprise ME!
And mentions of "Gaia" in other posts ... yes, that would excite the little anti-pagan bigots and snobs and slobs... Well of course it would! This society is a patriarchy! Gaia is a goddess archetype. Male chauvinism in yet another form.
And by the way, "Gaia", referring to the Earth as a system, or organism, is also a SCIENTIFIC theory, pioneered by Dr James Lovelock, which has to this day got a lot of respect and a large following.
So. There.
PS. Why is it possible to post "Smilies" in these threads - and yet I can find nothing to put in bold, underline, or italics?
