Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
92. ^^^ What SunSeeker Said ^^^
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:12 AM
Mar 2016
K&R. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #1
Or at least Third Way Manny jberryhill Mar 2016 #2
No. He wasn't out because of 5 hides. He was PPR'd. SunSeeker Mar 2016 #3
Bullshit. nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #4
Ditto the bullshit. SoapBox Mar 2016 #5
3x Depaysement Mar 2016 #13
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #56
Bull. 840high Mar 2016 #8
. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #14
The same could be argued about more than a few who have returned from purgatory. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #16
Those MIRT members that planned off-site to get members hidden here should have been PPR'd polly7 Mar 2016 #28
And of course requests to do so were met with the sound of crickets. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #31
Yes. polly7 Mar 2016 #33
"I'd love to turn Bonobo or cali into the quivering little chickenshits they are." Scootaloo Mar 2016 #32
I have to admit, I have complete contempt for those people and always will after seeing their polly7 Mar 2016 #35
I have to ask: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #36
Well, I don't imagine the alert-stalking is going to do much, if so Scootaloo Mar 2016 #52
And this one ....... polly7 Mar 2016 #63
Wow. progressoid Mar 2016 #65
yikes, I need each and evveryone of these people on my ignore list. Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #129
As far as I know, Skinner has never banned anyone for what they said off site. Amimnoch Mar 2016 #166
No, folks allowed back under the new rules were alert-stalked into time outs. Mannie was banned. SunSeeker Mar 2016 #48
He was banned for Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #50
That is not why he was banned. SunSeeker Mar 2016 #71
Well that is what is says on his transparency page. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #93
Actually that is why he was banned. Amimnoch Mar 2016 #167
No mostly they were jerks who earned their hidden posts by being jerks. Scootaloo Mar 2016 #67
The admins have obviously noticed a partisan bent to the hides. joshcryer Mar 2016 #91
I know that Manny was banned. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #125
^^^ What SunSeeker Said ^^^ Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #92
Sunseeker has been corrected on what (s)he said. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #96
And so have you. n/t Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #100
No, all I have seen are assertions, not arguments. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #105
I thorougly love Manny's sense of humor. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #123
And hence the question begs to be asked: when will he be invited back? Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #132
Where is kelliekat? Alert-stalked away also. nt Jitter65 Mar 2016 #154
OOPS Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #6
Bring Manny back NJCher Mar 2016 #7
posted without comment or reply. revmclaren Mar 2016 #9
It speaks of overreaction: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #25
Very true Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #155
You must have been lurking for the 2008 PUMA movement pintobean Mar 2016 #163
it certainly says a lot about the admins redruddyred Mar 2016 #39
No. He wasn't suspended because of hides. He was banned, pnwmom Mar 2016 #10
No shit he was banned. NO, he didn't deserve it, as much as he threatened the polly7 Mar 2016 #11
He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership. pnwmom Mar 2016 #15
Nah, he wasn't. polly7 Mar 2016 #20
If it's so obvious, then why are you disputing their decision? nt pnwmom Mar 2016 #21
Because I think it was 'wrong', why do you think?? nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #23
despite this the rule is bizarre redruddyred Mar 2016 #62
No he was not, quote where he was then Duckhunter935 Mar 2016 #156
He was PPRed. There's no coming back unless he personally pleas his case with Skinner. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #12
So did Trumad, but he is back for an encore. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #17
To the best of my knowledge, Trumad was never PPRed. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #18
Well, he was a Clinton supporter, so I guess a PPR was too much to ask even then. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #19
Oh brother! MohRokTah Mar 2016 #24
I didn't realize he was gone. I don't keep score. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #136
Trumad is back??????? JDPriestly Mar 2016 #131
So did CajunBLazer, by posting verbatim Jew-hate from a neo-nazi site Scootaloo Mar 2016 #26
Good point, Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #29
Was that poster PPRed? MohRokTah Mar 2016 #30
No, they were not, and that's kind of the point I'm making Scootaloo Mar 2016 #40
Then you have no point to make. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #61
Arbitrary rules that are oft allowed to be defied on personal bias is no way to run a kingdom Scootaloo Mar 2016 #86
You are free to leave if you don't like it. MohRokTah Mar 2016 #99
I'd prefer a community with stable, predictable standards of conduct from all sides Scootaloo Mar 2016 #109
I wonder whether your analysis is correct. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #128
We would certainly welcome it. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #134
Not All Bernie Supporters ProfessorGAC Mar 2016 #168
or L0oniz. or NYC_SKP Scootaloo Mar 2016 #22
Yes, they too, of course. Manny was just the first name that came to my mind. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #27
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #55
+1 MissDeeds Mar 2016 #118
Also. I would like to have them back. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #138
Wait, NYC_SKP has been nuked? n/t Turborama Mar 2016 #153
He was banned, not suspended. bravenak Mar 2016 #34
Which in itself speaks of a double standard. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #37
He was banned for a cause. Bernie or bust type stuff. bravenak Mar 2016 #41
Which during PRIMARIES is not disallowed. By the way: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #44
Skinner posted a clarification bravenak Mar 2016 #49
When "arbitrary" now means "biased" Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #53
This place is status quo bravenak Mar 2016 #68
Anything that favors your preferred candidate, eh? Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #72
I am not emotionally tied to a candidate. bravenak Mar 2016 #76
Nope. nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #66
It is on his profile.nt bravenak Mar 2016 #70
See post # 57 please. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #74
Here bravenak Mar 2016 #75
Do you even read before replying? Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #83
Not my call. bravenak Mar 2016 #88
But the primaries aren't over yet! Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #98
I know. bravenak Mar 2016 #104
OK, great. Seems a reasonable position. Would you then agree Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #107
Okay. bravenak Mar 2016 #113
I remember exactly what was posted. It was a bad ban. Live and Learn Mar 2016 #81
Do you mean to ask if I would have banned him? bravenak Mar 2016 #85
Not at all what I meant. But I do agree. nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #144
No. He was in violation of a clear standard. Read the terms of membership. pnwmom Mar 2016 #45
^^^THIS^^^ SunSeeker Mar 2016 #54
Ah, NO! Please see post # 57 Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #60
The standard is clear. The violation was not: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #57
You missed this part: pnwmom Mar 2016 #79
At the time, it was (and still is) uncertain Clinton would be that candidate/ nominee Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #87
It is only permitted if the poster leaves the door open about changing his mind. pnwmom Mar 2016 #150
You Better Believe It! Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #97
We don't believe it, because there is nothing to back up that claim. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #101
You know, you could take it up with Skinner in ATA. That's what it's for. I get that you're trying Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #106
Yes, this is applying public pressure. Well spotted. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #108
Good luck with that! Tarheel_Dem Mar 2016 #111
skinner appears to have trashed ATA Scootaloo Mar 2016 #114
Oooh, you just made me spray tea. (LOL) Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #115
Sadly, time to call it a night Scootaloo Mar 2016 #119
I'm in a different time-zone, so allow me to keep up the good fight. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #122
NSS!! nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #38
What? bravenak Mar 2016 #42
Lol! +1 BeanMusical Mar 2016 #82
It certainly seems that some TOS violators are arbitrarily ppr'd while others bbgrunt Mar 2016 #43
I have decided and it speaks of double standards. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #47
The establishment at their finest--much like DWS. bbgrunt Mar 2016 #58
The "establishment." pnwmom Mar 2016 #80
the above statement was brought to you by BIAS - Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #89
But if we set up websites of our own, it won't be any fun. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #139
This is a website promoting the Democratic party owned by an individual. It is not a Democracy.n/t pnwmom Mar 2016 #149
You are free to spend your time elsewhere if it bothers you so much. eom MohRokTah Mar 2016 #69
So are you, there's always the cave, right? nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #77
is that where Moh lives after earning six or seven hides? Scootaloo Mar 2016 #90
Probably. I'd guess mostly camped out in the hidden Grumble section. nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #94
Yeah, I mention these things because I'd rather be somewhere else. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #78
Manny was milder than the Rude Pundit LiberalLovinLug Mar 2016 #46
People that don't get satire must have it rough in the real world. polly7 Mar 2016 #51
You don't get it. delrem Mar 2016 #59
F*CK David Brock, then. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #64
shrug. It's reality, Betty. Reality. delrem Mar 2016 #84
K&R nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #73
Heaven forfend....Dieu nous en garde ! Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #95
It would be fair and even-handed. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #103
He's been banned (thankfully), not suspended. Different rules. Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #110
Banned arbitrarily. Different standards too, perhaps? Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #117
Skinner IS the ultimate arbiter around here...thank god. Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #120
Ultimate, but even he has imperfections. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #124
There was nothing "arbitrary" about that decision. NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #126
Yes, it's clear that your side wants a monopoly on reprieves. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #145
Don't like the rules? Change forums! Arbitrary after 10~ years of disruption? Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #127
So you want us to give you Hell and a cold treatment too? Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #147
THE MANNY HATERS CAN FUCK THEMSELVES Skittles Mar 2016 #102
Manny is gentle, kind, witty, ironic, imaginative, and enriched DU immeasurably. senz Mar 2016 #112
Senz, the kindness of your every word is wonderful. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #116
Illegitimi non carborundum senz Mar 2016 #121
Haha. You appeal to the latinist in me now: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #130
Wow, I'm impressed. senz Mar 2016 #140
Actually, I have Horace's collected works on the bookshelf: one very think volume. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #142
What psycho-babble codswhallop...Bwaahaaaaaa! Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #143
LOL! Well, I tried senz Mar 2016 #146
+100000000000000 JDPriestly Mar 2016 #148
Jesus Christ, get a room already! randome Mar 2016 #159
He was a troll - banned for TOS violation. n/t Lil Missy Mar 2016 #133
Let me repeat once more: the rule is clear, the violation was NOT at all clear: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #135
It clearly helps Republicans. Get over it. Lil Missy Mar 2016 #137
Here is something for you to get over: Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #141
LOL... SidDithers Mar 2016 #151
Manny had an aversion to the likely... Mike Nelson Mar 2016 #152
Who says he wants back in here? LiberalElite Mar 2016 #157
God, the hero worship here is embarrassing sometimes. randome Mar 2016 #158
Manny is a racist. He was rightfully banned for his racist, and otherwise trolling. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #160
That's not what he was banned for. Amimnoch Mar 2016 #165
Black posters were on the receiving end of that 'advocacy.' Targeted, alert stalked, etc. You msanthrope Mar 2016 #169
No argument at all there, and Bravenak is one of my most favorite people on this board! Amimnoch Mar 2016 #170
And people want his racist ass back.....unbelievable. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #171
In order to expect that you'd have to think the rule changes were about fairness and inclusivity aikoaiko Mar 2016 #161
His ban was for something other than violating the "rules" covered in yesterday's OP by Skinner. George II Mar 2016 #162
Reasons as stated by Skinner. Amimnoch Mar 2016 #164
Where did Skinner say he's allowing banned members back? sufrommich Mar 2016 #172
Locking In_The_Wind Mar 2016 #173
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Dear Skinner, when may we...»Reply #92