Bias

[EvolveOrConvolve]

16. What's funny is that I wasn't being all that much of a fucking asshole

The religionist I was debating used personal attacks and smears in nearly every post (and none were hidden), and I really don't bother alerting much any more.

The jury comments weren't all that bad, even if the post wasn't hidden: (although #4 irks me a little)

Calls the person they are repsonding to a "fucking asshole".

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Mar 12, 2012, 08:56 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm usually inclined to leave rude arguments alone unless there's a direct insult, but implying that someone is a "fucking asshole" definitely crosses the line.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Yah, OK, it's a tiff. Next.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Technically the poster weasels out of calling the other poster an f'ing ahole ("If you aren't... you have nothing to feel guilty about", but the post on average seems like the very definition of disruptive-rude-inappropriate-etc; even the condescension a la "Try reading what I wrote--you can, if you try real hard, figure it out" really has no place in civil discourse, IMO, although I'm 98% sure this jury will acquit because the poster didn't say F-your-mother-and-not-in-a-conditional-tense.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

The post in question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=13901

Here's the entire subthread; it's a pretty interesting read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121813510#post38