I think the new rules will have unintended consequences...

[kentuck]

I think it might get rid of many of the trolls that came to DU for the sole purpose of disrupting debate and making snarky comments.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I think you're right. So far, so good, kentuck. eom

[SCantiGOP]

53. Not only are you correct

I assumed that was a major reason for the policy.
I have no question some of the posters here the past few months were paid, perhaps by Trump/GOP, or were free-lancers who got their kicks by disrupting the "demonrats".

[yeoman6987]

109. I don't think you'll see many alerts at all

[BlueCaliDem]

111. I don't know about that. Yesterday, I participated on no less than three juries.

[whopis01]

123. Are you kidding?

I have been on more juries in the past few days than I ever was before.

[yeoman6987]

124. Lol. I have been on 3 but have no idea what became of them

How long is it til I say eh...ill take the next jury.

[ProfessorGAC]

125. Really?

I've been on dozens, probably hundreds, but only 1 each day the last two days. That's uncharacteristically low for me. If i spend more than a couple hours here, i'll be on 2 a day.

[Coolest Ranger]

133. So have I

I been on at least 3 since the new rules launched

[sheshe2]

2. I think you are correct, kentuck.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Alerted!

[Rex]

4. I like the new system.

We are now acting as mods and I think you are 100% correct.

[lonestarnot]

77. So what's the new system, I have had time to pay attention.

[Rex]

80. Pledge twice turn to the left and roll a 20d

A 1 means you fumbled and must be spanked by the board of righteousness.

[seabeckind]

96. You're begging for it mister.

One more outburst like that and you're heading for the principal's office!!!

Lord, what smiley do I use to show this was a joke?????

Otherwise....

[merrily]

103. Principal's office should be a tip off, but you never know.

[HubertHeaver]

126. Principal Skinner's office?

[puffy socks]

128. shrimp and peanut battle

[Amaril]

132. Ha!

I see what you did there!

[lonestarnot]

108. Holy crap! I don't believe in spanking!

[seabeckind]

5. It may also discourage debate.

No one should fear a devil's advocate.

If the argument is so weak and the poster cannot handle that opposition, perhaps the failing lies in the poster.

And with a lucky coin flip, an effective course of action might be lost.

[geek tragedy]

10. there's always Discussionist for those who favor everything goes nt

[seabeckind]

12. Ah, actually everything doesn't go.

Anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

I learn a lot on DI. Trends in the RWNJ, argument techniques of the fringe. Able to defend against really ruthless vile comments. I have never alerted there. Never felt the need to.

Tho a bit rough and tumble it's not a bad thing.

It's really hard to know what the enemy is up to if you hide behind a wall. (general you, no personal intent)

[Moonwalk]

31. I hate that phrase ("Anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger...")

...It always strikes me as the logic of a bully: "These awful things I'm doing to you will make you stronger; so my cruelty is actually a favor. You're welcome."

I mean, if you really think about it, what doesn't kill you can leave you crippled, insane, broken, damaged, paranoid, shattered, or a shadow of your former self. It can also make you vengeful, hateful, cruel and bitter. None of which sound "stronger" to me. And a lot of which apply to those who've been driven off DI by those ruthless, vile comments. Unless, of course, your view is that all those run-off people were "killed." In which case...how many people do we allowed to be killed so that those that remain will be "stronger"? I kinda think the forum wants to make sure democrats feel welcome and able to discuss politics peacefully, and so have plenty of members...rather than making them feel like they've entered into the hunger games.

And I kinda think democrats that want to "strengthen" their ability to deal with vile comments and hunger game antics will have plenty of chances to do that on forums where they're arguing with republicans. They hardly need to get more of it here.

I'll posit you an alternative quote:
"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

I would hope democrats would try to create a most civilized place to discuss politics. If not for its own sake, then in the hopes that it might spread out to the wider world and, maybe, weaken the trolls rather than requiring that the weak become trolls to survive.

[missingthebigdog]

36. Well said!!

Thank you for that.

[seabeckind]

48. Actually I see it as totally the opposite

You seem to feel like it is sucking up and being subservient.

I see it as standing up to that bully and being bruised and beaten and emerging a stronger person and ready to deal with even more adversity next time.

The other part of your comment seems to indicate that you need a shield of some sort when on this site. That a protection is needed.

If you feel that way I'm afraid there's nothing I can say. If that isn't your meaning I'm afraid I misunderstood your words.

I feel like if someone has a strong argument they should be able to deal with opposition. On their own, using their own wits, using their own logic.

I have never alerted on anything except for one occasion on DI when the person spewed the most vile insults I've ever seen on the forum. There was just no way to respond. (I might add that I wasn't involved in that exchange)

I usually have tried to respond to a vile comment trying not to be vile but still dealing with it. In the most extreme of situations when it seemed like I was trying to reason with the unreasonable I hit the ignore button and walked away. I think I have fewer than 10 people on ignore.

I also believe that my pain threshold might be a bit higher. Most likely a result of life experiences. No matter.

Enjoy your evening. I'll lurk a bit more after logging off. I think we've reached an equilibrium.

Peace.

[REP]

50. It's not a phrase. It's a quote from Nietzsche.

"From life's school of war: what does not kill me makes me stronger" is a quote from Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer (Götzen-Dämmerung, oder, Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophir)

[seabeckind]

59. I did the google machine and Nietzsche was just having us on

That my take on it was wrong. A source said:

He's really making fun of the statement. And in typical Nietzschean style, he attempts to refute it using snarky, obscure jabs rather than nuanced or rigorous analytical analysis. He evokes images of hardships that are almost nearly fatal, from the physical to the emotional, to show how ludicrous it is to claim that repeatedly adversity could ever be a source of strength. In fact, people who are repeatedly confronted with such hardships tend to become depressed, unproductive, and even suicidal.

In pointing out its ironic falsity, Nietzsche also makes the point that the statement is quite useful for controlling others: convincing them to be strong and push through difficult situations, cajoling them into giving up their own lives for the larger cause of their country ("the military school of life&quot , etc.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/149/was-nietzsche-making-fun-of-the-military-mindset-when-he-said-that-which-does-n

So we're into that usual bs ambiguous philosophical stuff.

Depends on situation. But I wasn't talking as much about strength as abstract learning to deal with different situations.

Ok, I won't use it anymore as a quick label. Too much nuance.

Thanks (I think)

[REP]

60. Yeah, best not to quote Nietzsche when you haven't read him.

[seabeckind]

63. Didn't know I was. My bad.

Problem is that I get to wandering off looking for the basis for stuff and then forget why I went there.

[AgadorSparticus]

70. What is DI?

[lovemydog]

83. It's a web site called Discussionist.

http://www.discussionist.com

It was started by the owners of democratic underground as a place where democrats and republicans can talk.

[AgadorSparticus]

88. Oh ok. I know discussionist. I just didn't realize DI was short for that. Thank you

[Rex]

18. Actually DI is not everything goes, the cons over there are as thin skinned as Trump. nt

nt

[Lil Missy]

26. This site isn't for "opposing sides". You can always do that on some other website.

[RKP5637]

43. Agree!!! K&R!!! n/t

[seabeckind]

49. You don't welcome constructive advice?

Isn't there a strong tendency that the discussions will become all saccharine? That the site becomes just an echo chamber?

I've always found it helpful after a rousing debate to do a retrospection and on occasion find that I might have missed a different way to interpret a situation.

You don't find that a helpful learning experience?

[trumad]

90. There are plenty of other sites that will fill your need.

[seabeckind]

92. Yeah but I like this one.

I feel like I'm contributing.

I'd take this further


but

[trumad]

94. Well then quit moaning about how the place is set up.

You want to engage morans, go find a place that let's you.

[seabeckind]

97. Oops, mother in law hand

See ya

[ozone_man]

51. So it's a cheer leading site?

That's depressing.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Perhaps you need to reread the new ToS. I'll help you with a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

All you had to do was click on "Announcements" to your left and it would take you to the latest announcement by the Admins, Welcome to General Election 2016, and you can read what is and what isn't allowed - with links for more clarification.

So no. No "cheerleading".

[TwilightZone]

58. Which one also had to agree to before posting after the update was made.

[BlueCaliDem]

64. That's 100% true, TZ. eom

[ozone_man]

62. It's a fine line.

Mostly cheer leading, some honest discussion. We knew it was coming, but it's still depressing that it has arrived.

[seabeckind]

93. Some of it comes across as unfair.

Before the change bashing for bashing sake seemed to be acceptable or at least a blind eye.

Now suggesting that an bias is implied is met with a reverse attack of some sort. A response to that, no matter how carefully worded is sometimes alerted.

Catch the wrong jury and your continued input, no matter how useful, is lost forever.

OTOH, I've seen historical instances in real life where that was a good thing. Sometimes forcing the rebel out of the rigid work environment started a whole new industry.

[The Green Manalishi]

134. It is getting us back to the purpose

Which is to strengthen the position of the Democratic party and Democratic politicians and policies.

Seems pretty clear to me- posts or people who attack our candidates are not welcome, period.

Posts or people who attack other DU members (rather than the argument) are not welcome.

It's all about getting Secretary Clinton elected POTUS and getting justices on the Supreme Court who will work for progressive ends. That and electing as many Democrats to the congress and state offices as possible. Anyone not down with those objectives should *NOT* be made to feel welcome here.

There are plenty of places to debate more general ideas and policies, and I enjoy doing so in those contexts, for there are things propounded by some Democrats with which strongly disagree. And there are places within DU to debate which policy *is* the more progressive, or which will help the progressive cause (Guns, Israel/Palestine, etc).

But, while I strongly supported Bernie, as far as I am concerned anyone or anything that attacks Sec Clinton increases the likelihood of President Trump, and thus has no place here.


I might be wrong, but I bet I'm not in this case.

Plenty of places to look for the 'Truth', I'm here to figure out how to fight the Republican agenda and network with like minded people.


Respectfully,
Dan

[leftofcool]

116. There are other sites you can go to with less optimism for Hillary

[obamanut2012]

38. lolololol

[PoliticalMalcontent]

46. I hear you, seabeckind.

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

People here seem to think in the black and white while the world exists in so many shades of grey.

I haven't been partaking in discussion anymore because what's the point? People demonize you here for having opinions slightly outside of the echo chamber... I find that disappointing and not helpful to democracy or many other aspects of our world.

It's made me question whether I want to be here or not. This is my first internet forum... I've shunned social media networks and forums because it reminds me of just how terrible the world is (also, I'm not exactly teeming with friends). People will probably criticize me for that, but it's true. Have you seeeeeen how many times the same jokes slamming republicans get passed around here? Aren't there enough legitimate reasons to slam republicans (and really all politicians to some degree) without falling back on the same tired tropes repeatedly?

Trump is a damn phony and the fact that so many people support him (not here obviously) tells you about all you need to know about society right now.

Anyway... I'm going to have to take some time to think about what I contribute to these forums, or perhaps more importantly, what I am allowed to contribute to these forums. I feel like my talents might be wasted here, even if I agree with most all of you politically a vast majority of the time.

Thank you for bringing up this point though, seabeckind. A sincere +1.

[seabeckind]

55. I've noticed that we need to be more careful of the eggshells.

I just pretty much ignore the Trump is a poopyhead threads. Yeah, I got it the first 2000 times. I'm most definitely not going to vote for him.

It's a lot like it was in 2008. Maybe a little more brutal but still a good learning experience.

Sure beats the hel out of many of the other sites. By a long, long shot.

I would like to see a little less spillover from the election thread to the general thread but it's something I can deal with.

There's lots of great stuff here. The news feed part is great as are the good reads.

Hang on. It'll settle out.

[ozone_man]

66. Resistance is futile.

Here anyway. Nevertheless, one can toe the line and survive. Will the limited discussion open any closed minds? Probably not. It becomes an echo chamber. That is GE.

[AgadorSparticus]

74. What I have found is that you talk about most anything. It's really HOW you say it.

Unfortunately, what I have seen here has been ridiculous. It is not the norm and I hope you don't think it was. People are worried about echo chambers but the irony is that in the constant bickering, it became an echo chamber of the SAME arguments over and over and over. Sprinkle in some hostility and it was just toxic. Nothing good came out of out. I, for one, have been looking forward to this new forum. And it is proving to be exactly what DU needs.

[scscholar]

65. This. Got a warning for saying I agree with Bernie on superdelegates

What's wrong with that? We shouldn't be afraid to talk about serious issues.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

86. What is a "warning"?

Is that something new with the recent changes?

[seabeckind]

91. It's not a formal process

just a posting from someone who suggests you're over the line and quotes or sends you the rules.

It's a lot like someone in your neighborhood association telling you you shouldn't have left your car in the driveway

and then attaches a copy of the bylaws.

In the case of the forum you can try to explain yourself but you're taking a big, big chance. Best to just shake your head and walk away. IOW, the wrong choice of words on your part was upsetting to someone.

[Moonwalk]

68. It won't discourage debate because the button pusher is as much on trail....

..as the person they push the button on. I just did this jury duty. The jury to judges not only the "offensive" comment, but the person who was offended. And they are offers several choices in each judgement.

So. You say something to me and I'm offended. I push the button on you. Hah-hah! I think. I've erased this offensive thing! But not so fast! The choices that a jury gets don't just include "is it offensive or not?" But also "is it deliberately offensive?" The Jury might find your comment offensive, but might realize that you didn't mean it the way. They may recognize that you were just going your way in the debate. And, of course, they might also say, "Nope. Not offensive, don't remove."

AND THEN...whatever the jury decides, I (the person to sent the post to trail) gets put on trail, too. The jury gets asked whether I was justified in asking for a jury to check this post out. AND whether the jury thinks I was really offended, or whether I was trying to cause trouble.

In short, was I trying to discourage debate? So, your fear that this is going to create a situation where "delicate flowers" are going to be pushing the alert button at every turn, and that fear of this will discourage debate doesn't seem likely. Because the person who pushes that alert button might have it come back and bite them. Once people learn this, they'll know that they shouldn't push the alert button unless they really, really think this or that post is going beyond the pale. They'd better be sure the jury will not only see it their way, but see them as justified for pointing it out. Otherwise, they may be the one judged as the troublemaker.

[TipTok]

84. Some percentage of the DU population isn't here for debate or new information...

They are just here to have their existing opinions reinforced.

It used to be a larger group with wider topics and under the new rules it has shrunk considerably.

[liberal N proud]

102. If debate can be civil, it should be welcomed anywhere

If I can discuss something with another without throwing barbs at one another, then the debate is not only healthy but should be welcomed.

I don't think the new rules have to discourage debate, just reminds everyone that we need to be civil in our discussions.

[seabeckind]

104. Agree.

Sometimes in the heat of the moment someone might do a poor choice of words that is taken literally.

And then never gets a chance to explain.

Civil is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

[snooper2]

110. do you have a twin?

[Victor_c3]

112. That's my biggest complaint too

If you use the word "corporate" in any discussion it is obvious that you are referring to a certain candidate and the post risk being hidden.

The same thing goes with anti-war.

I've been having a hard time dancing around those terms and not discussing them. They are two things that I'm not willing to bend or flex on.

I'm not trying to be passive aggressive here, but I believe this post I just wrote even risks being hidden.

[virtualobserver]

6. more likely intended, rather than unintended.

[villager]

7. On which note, is it me, or are jury results not reported back to jurors anymore?

I've been on three juries in this "new era" so far, and while I like the anonymity of it, I've never heard back on what any of the results were.

Is that a new feature, too?

[sheshe2]

8. Yup....

New feature.

[villager]

9. Huh. Any thought on why?

..since I haven't seen, or clearly missed, that aspect/explanation of the "new rules?"

[petronius]

11. The Admins think that the result notices are disruptive and drama-creating

They want jurors to move on and forget about it after voting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910796

[villager]

16. Thanks. So I guess people with 0-7 verdicts "agin' 'em," who get the time outs...

...are notified through PMs, then, at least.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Ive posted jury results before

granted, they were on ridiculous alerts. That being said, it is probably best to not be able to do it.

[wryter2000]

24. Shoot

I like to know if I'm in agreement with other DUers. I'd be happy to go to the thread and see if the post is still there, but I often lose track of it and can't go back to check.

[hlthe2b]

29. I think that would be very hard to do since you don't kno what forum/group it was posted in, nor

who made the posting or the person to whom they were responding.

[unc70]

45. Actually quite easy to track

In most cases, you can look at the thread before the last juror finishes. You can also use Google and look at the cache.

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. I'd also like to see where I came out

I was also curious about what other jurors may have written, which is now, sadly, not a part of the process.

But at the very least I'd like a quick message back on what the verdict was and the count.


BTW....just between you and me....I was on one jury case since the revamp. What I did was make sure I copied a key phrase in the OP. Then later on, I did a site search for that phrase to find the thread and post. (It was still there, which supported my vote)

[HuckleB]

129. I suspect the issue is that sometimes a juror response was far more ugly than the post in question.

It became quite surreal.

[villager]

136. Yes, there are workarounds, but especially with these more fine-tuned iterations of voting....

...such as "really deep shit," "hardly shitty at all," etc. (yes, yes, I jibe, josh and paraphrase... ), I'd like to see how the tallies go.

Also, if something just "barely" doesn't pass muster, is the penalty really the same as something which is -- to use a misapplied term from the recent NBA Finals -- a "flagrant foul?"

[babylonsister]

56. I liked seeing the results, too, so I miss that. nt

[zipplewrath]

118. Me too

I liked to see how my point of view matched the general population.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Me Three, Sis!

I like the streamlining of the process, but i'd still like to know the results. Even if it's just "you voted x and the rest of the jurors did whatever?" Then with no comments, it wouldn't be divisive.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Because people kept posting the results leading to more meta discussion? n/t

[villager]

14. True. There was a lot of "I was Juror #3!" posting going on...

Hmm. Thanks.

[Yonnie3]

21. The why is in an ATA thread

"We have come to view the notifications as a catalyst for forum drama." There's more at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10796

After mulling this over, I agree.

[seabeckind]

15. One feature that I think might help

as a constructive suggestion, the notification that an alert has occurred and give the poster a chance to rescind or reword as an alternative before the jury sees it.

Perhaps a notice put on the alerted comment to indicate that it is in dispute. Perhaps include the alerters comment.

A lot of times it is nothing more than a poor choice of words.

[villager]

17. Interesting. A "re-think/cool-down" clause, eh?

Have you posted it in "Ask the Admins?"

[seabeckind]

19. No I hadn't

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what I have to do.

[seabeckind]

25. I gave it a shot.

I didn't see an ask thing anywhere so I guessed.

Thanks

[BumRushDaShow]

41. When they transitioned from DU2 to early DU3

I recall that posters used to have the chance to edit if alerted before the post was removed by a mod. Then I think when they put the jury system in place and came up with the "hide" feature (which allowed the post to be view-able if someone wanted to see the original content in the interest of "transparency&quot , the edit ability went away.

[Wednesdays]

32. I think I had read that yes, that is the case

I tend to support that. There'll be a lot fewer pissing contests.

[babylonsister]

135. I would like to know what we're supposed to do

on a jury if someone seems to be voicing their opinion. It's not always so black and white.

[Kingofalldems]

20. There is a huge opening for Trump concern trolls though.

They don't post anything snarky or technically against the rules but they are here.

[TipTok]

85. Some folks have their sensitivity turned to 11...

... and honest discussion can be interpreted as evil trolls out to burn things to the ground.

[Kingofalldems]

99. Just voicing my opinion on Trump trolls.

Too bad you don't like it.

[TipTok]

100. That's not very friendly...

Remember the bit about civil discussion?

[Kingofalldems]

101. You seem upset and touchy about something

I was not uncivil in the least.

[seabeckind]

105. A part of your response could be taken differently.

The "Too bad you don't like it" was a little "in your face".

[Kingofalldems]

106. Of course the original response to me wasn't, I guess.

[seabeckind]

107. I'll leave it at that. n/t

[TipTok]

114. Remember that bit about high sensitivity?

It's not all about you...

I threw out a general garment and you claimed it a perfect fit.

Interesting...

[wryter2000]

23. Yup

K&R

[Duval]

27. I hope so.

[Cary]

28. You're just seeing that now?

They are nothing new. They had some fertile soil here and it's unfortunate.

Ron Paul cultists, and their silly "left-right paradigm" schtick.

[vkkv]

30. I still say we should have the right to complain about Dem politicians without worry that

a reader with a heavy Alert Button is going to take offense.

DU members aren't likely to promote a RepubiScum over a Dem any day or in any way.

[Moonwalk]

34. Most Republican trolls that come here don't promote Republicans either. Their aim...

Is to say something they know will start a fight and polarize democrats. If you sow dissent among your enemies, they won't remember that they ought to be fighting you.

[Wednesdays]

35. Well, tbh, there were a lot of recent posts

... that came very close to calling for people to vote for tRump if things didn't work out to their liking.

[vkkv]

37. Really? "a lot of rerecent posts"?? I'm here all of the time since I work out of my house and I have

not read ONE about going for Trump if Bernie did not make it...

Me thinks that u r exaggerating.

[zipplewrath]

119. We'll see after the general

During election season, I suspect it will be hard to complain about democrats. After that, I'll be curious.

My primary concern is that there will way to much concern about HOW something is said, instead of WHAT was said.

Just have to wait and see.

[IronLionZion]

33. Lots of new members join the morning after a mass shooting

or some other politically controversial event. They just feel so inspired to join our forum on that day for some reason!

I like to welcome them to DU. And then when I check back later I see that most of them have been deleted!

[vkkv]

39. Ahem... Bashing anonymous members...

See how easy it is to come close to warranting an ALERT now??

[IronLionZion]

40. Good!

Bring it!

[Gene Debs]

42. Maybe. They may also turn DU into an echo chamber where important truths are muzzled because

they happen to be inconvenient or unpleasant.

[sheshe2]

82. There are other sites to post on.

[zipplewrath]

120. That's a given

Basically, if one doesn't spend as much or more time and effort on HOW one says something than WHAT one is saying, there will be risks. Even worse, one can come in and declare anyone with a D a "saint" regardless of what NRA position they back, but if you refer to them as a sinner, you're in trouble.

[global1]

47. It"s Too Bad That We Weren't Able To Get Rid Of Those Trolls....

back during the primaries. They were the cause of much of the decension here on DU.

[demigoddess]

52. I am pretty tired of the bullies who answer your comment

with a version of you just don't have the right to disagree on any point.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

75. i disagree

lol

[Warpy]

54. Alert junkies seem to be working overtime

I've had more jury requests in the last two days than I had in the two weeks prior.

[retrowire]

61. Nope they're still here. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

69. I agree

Many are still working here.

[Liberal_in_LA]

67. ..

[RussBLib]

71. so how about un-banning those banned from the Hillary Clinton group?

The primaries are over, right? So what if I preferred Bernie? I'm with Her, now. But I still can't post in the Group of the presumptive nominee?

Time to let bygones be bygones, at least for those who want to be un-banned.

[applegrove]

72. And the trolls who came here to divide Democrats against each

other. Though I am detecting some very staid detractors in some threads.

[kentuck]

73. There is one section that I disagree with...

That states that we cannot criticize someone like Anthony Wiener or others of similar character, simply because they are "Democrats". There is a certain line that should not be crossed, in my opinion.

[a la izquierda]

89. Right, so I am not allowed to say

Ed Manchin suck and is basically a republican?

Great. Corporate, gun toting, scumbag democrats can get a pass.

[jack_krass]

76. I applaud the new rules. They will effectively kill the martyrdom drama

sideshows(some of the silliest mellodramatic bullshit Ive ever seen anywhere), threads jacked by meta discussions, and other drama bullshit which has plagued several forums here.

I personally dont need to see the result of my Jury.

[kentuck]

79. I think they should make one small modification with the jury notification.

As it was, nobody knew who the jurors were, anyway.

[emulatorloo]

81. Remember how many jury notifications were being re-posted verbatim in threads?

Always caused ridiculous drama. My theory is that's the reason we don't notification anymore after sitting on a jury.

[pintobean]

87. So, make a rule against it

People won't do it if it's going to get hidden.

[Orrex]

95. I now receive a slightly higher percentage each time someone reads one of my posts

Ka-ching!

[Kurovski]

117. Your painting "Museum for the Blind" is brilliant.

[Orrex]

121. Yes, it is indeed quite brilliant!

My wife My Good Babushka is the painter, however, so she gets the credit!

Thank you for the kind words!

[Odin2005]

98. I hope it got rid of all the pro-Putin and pro-China shills.

[disillusioned73]

115. Yeah...

[MynameisBlarney]

122. And?

This is bad?

[mrmpa]

130. One change I would like is...........

to be able to see the results of my jury service. I've served about 5 times in the last 3 days. I think I clearly made the right choice and I would like to see validation, or, if I was wrong I would like to review and understand where I might have made the wrong choice.

[maindawg]

131. Too many rules

Too many flaggings . People get upset too easily. Sometimes when someone has a strong opinion they get flaged when all that is needed is an edit. I mean you should not attack anyone or otherwise be disrespectful. Just because you feel very strongly that some part of our political sphere is askew, maybe you have a point. Its not unheard of for some part of it to be corrupt. And if that corruption is in our backyard we would be twice as bad as they are if we did not root it out.
I never vote to block a post unless it's a personal attack.