General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)As there was no attempt to explain the supposed analogy to me, I can safely assume that the way I read that post was the only way it could be read. What's really bothered me about it has been the way the person who posted it has repeatedly doubled down on it and the way some who have dismissed it as just being mild name-calling would have a completely different reaction if it'd been aimed at them. If it'd been aimed at me I would have alerted on it (and I rarely alert), and if I'd been on the jury for it I'd have voted to hide it because I think equating women with dogs is something that shouldn't be acceptable at DU...
While you seem to think that's far less important than jury blacklists at DU, I don't, which is why I didn't bother with the rest of yr post, which was a blatant 'Look! Over there!' type of thing. We're supplied with a jury blacklist, and I've got mine strategically filled with folk who I think would judge any post of mine that's alerted on based on *me* rather than the content of the post. Nothing wrong with people discussing their jury blacklists and who's on them. If it bothers you, try alerting on it and see how you go, but make sure yr consistent and also alert on posts in this other thread where a few people are discussing who's on their jury blacklists...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=38630
Have a nice day...