Not for Nothing ... but, Am I the Only One to think that it is a travesty that of ALL the times

[Tuesday Afternoon]

it is NOW that seabeyond can not post.

I wonder if she would say (if she could) ....


I TOLD YOU SO !!!!! < ---- five for the five injustices that took autonomy away from women.

Am I the only one?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. No you are not!

But she would say - I fuckin' told ya so!

And I would rec and kick that shit!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. Happy Fourth, JAG

feels kinda weird though = as if I don't have the complete right to celebrate it, yanno

[JustAnotherGen]

18. Excellent point!

But Janice sang - freedoms just another word - for nothing left to looooose.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. woman. you just sent cold chills all over my body. I am not kidding.

Janis. god rest her soul. her and bobby riding the freedom train for eternity.

wow.

thank you.

that picture you just painted in my head. beautiful.

peace.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. It's starting to feel that way

Isnt it though? That's what my mom said when I talked to her Tuesday night.

Both my brother and me were "oops babies" even though my parents were married. Both conceived while taking the pill religiously. Not having us was never an option for my parents - even though they really didnt want me for at least another three years!

But not every women was in her situation.

She's just heart broken. And she thinks my father rolled over in his grave.

That man loved us - loved women. I'm glad he's not alive to see this.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. JAG ...

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I can not talk about how I was conceived.

still hurts.

after all these years ( and lo, they be many )

still hurts.

the pain.

visceral.

at the surface.

and to read and see some of the shit on this message board (not just HoF, go all over DU3). TODAY of all days.

fuck.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. Nothing but hugs

[roguevalley]

71. seabeyond sent me a lovely note shortly ago when I was down. these are awful times.

[JustAnotherGen]

74. Me too!

She's a sweet pea. I think the folks that have issues with her - those are THIER issues. My hubby loves her, Bainsbane, Number23, Bravenak, redqueen - They make man better men! The 'boys' can't see that. So says The Gio. Except I'm never allowed to get together with BainsBane if I have the AMEX on me - handbags and yelling will ensue!

[roguevalley]

77. bwahahaha. I think the world would be a better place if in disagreement we argreed to be agreeable.

hugs on this day, justanothergen

[JustAnotherGen]

79. Yeah

That and a dollar gets these fools nowhere with me! I'll be damned! Just I'll be damned.

As long as we are 'good girls' and are sweet and kind and raise our hand to speak - THEN our behavior is appropo.

I call bullshit!


I've never done that in my career and I've been very successful - if they call me a bitch. Then so be it.

That's means I've pushed their buttons and gotten on their nerves - and that can only a be a good thing.

[TDale313]

2. Nope. You're not the only one. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. thanks, TDale313 =

I have been wondering. Finally, thought I would ask about it.

Happy Fourth to you and yours < ---- my country right or wrong *sigh*

[homegirl]

35. Five Roman Catholic Men. Doing the Vaticans work.

Land of the Free, Unless You're a Woman
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed

Friday 04 July 2014

The flags are fluttering, the backyard barbecues are blazing, and the Souza marches will strut into the sky to greet the grand thudding starbursts of fireworks. It is the Fourth of July in these United States, our annual national celebration of freedom.

What a sad joke.

Not long ago, five men on the Supreme Court handed down their decision in the already-infamous Hobby Lobby case. In it, they ruled that the owners of "closely-held" companies with "sincere religious beliefs" can deny medical coverage for certain forms of contraception, if such forms of contraception go against those religious beliefs.

(snip)

The decision in the Hobby Lobby case is many things. It is the continued elevation of Christianity over all other religions, and over the choice to hold no religion, in a country where no single religion is supposed to hold sway. It is yet another flat declaration that corporations have more rights than people. It is a purely political action to strike a blow against the Affordable Care Act, the right's most beloved boogeyman. It is a very sneaky back door through which alleged "people of faith" can peddle their onging discrimination against LGBT employees.

And, of course, it is simple, old-fashioned woman-hating from top to bottom.

It is another jarring attempt to remake the United States according to the opinions of men like Utah's Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who agrees with the court's decision because women only use contraception for "recreational behavior," and not for significant and pressing medical reasons or motivations of personal freedom. It is an attempt to remake the United States according to the opinions of men like Washington Post columnist George Will, who recently argued that women on college campuses only cry "rape" because they want the "coveted status" of being a rape survivor.

Two years ago, Cecily McMillan was participating in a peaceful Occupy protest in New York City when a police officer came up behind her and grabbed her violently by the breast. Like any normal woman, McMillan threw an elbow to stop the assault. For this, she was convicted of assaulting a police officer and sentenced to 90 days at Rikers Island. It could have been seven years.

McMillan was recently released, and gave a harrowing description of the conditions she and the other women incarcerated at at Rikers endured: women dying, women bleeding vaginally for hours, women with cancer, diabetes and other ailments who were denied medical treatment while being stacked like so much cord wood in overcrowded bunk rooms.

McMillan is free now, but still in jail, incarcerated with every other woman in the Rikers Island that is these United States, thanks to the five men who handed down the Hobby Lobby decision. The food is better, and there are no bars on the doors, but it is a prison nonetheless, where women do not enjoy equal status, where women can and will be denied basic and necessary medical services, because somebody's bastardized version of Jesus considers them to be lesser creatures, and not nearly as important as a corporation.

Enjoy your "independence" day.

The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24773-william-rivers-pitt-land-of-the-free-unless-youre-a-woman

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. Thank you for re-posting that, homegirl.

[nomorenomore08]

106. "Simple, old-fashioned woman hating from top to bottom." So concisely and eloquently stated.

[libodem]

4. How many times is this now?

The 4th? What about personal responsibility? I think it is important to learn from mistakes.

. [img][/img]

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. you come in HoF with this crap? you call it a fucking belief?

you think it is not a FACT that I have autonomy over my own body??????

do you really.

[JTFrog]

8. Fuck that noise.

Some folks just have no shame.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. shall we put it to a move? I move that libodem be banned from HoF. Can I get a second?

I am afraid to post for an alert. You know that is what libodem is up to.

JTFrog

[JTFrog]

11. Hell yes.

We don't need shit stirrers here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. we have a second. shall we put the motion to a vote? all in favor say Aye. AYE.

[Small Accumulates]

56. Aye.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. welcome to DU3 and to HoF, Small Accumulates

[Small Accumulates]

78. Thank you!!

I've been lurking for a very, very long time. I greatly admire the fine members of HOF. Finally feel that I need to be speaking up.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. important? in the scheme of things you think THAT is what is IMPORTANT ????

are we not lady like enough to suit you?

god forbid.

[mercuryblues]

13. so what

are you saying here? if women weren't so slutty and only had sex when she wanted a kid, she would be well behaved?

Go tell that to my husband and ask him if he would enjoy only having sex when a child is the result.

Women work for their benefits, now we have a company who says because of the companies religious beliefs, birth control is against corporate policy. so women will be denied a benefit they work for. FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK TO HELL anyone who believes a corporation can dictate what kind of healthcare women are allowed.

That narrow ruling????? 90% of corporations in the US are privately held. Some are suing to not even let a Dr. discuss family planning methods with a woman, based on their religious beliefs.

[BainsBane]

100. He's not talking about the court ruling.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. so then, you really think ALL of sea's hides were justified? really? you really think that?

every hide that sea has ever gotten ... you agree with?

really?

really?

really?

Honestly, it makes me wonder if you weren't one of her alerters.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Another vote in favor of Tuesday's idea

[Mc Mike]

40. I did what I could to help you 'out'.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not a frequent visitor to H of Fem, but think they should be able to ban libodem. Obvious attempt to start trouble, for no reason.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. welcome to DU3 and to HoF

thank you. all this alerting and jury duty is making me dizzy. I sincerely mean welcome.

[Mc Mike]

133. Thanks, Tues. nt.

[mopinko]

42. well behaved women rarely make history

HERstory, either.

[Louisiana1976]

84. True.

[Squinch]

43. Oh, buzz the fuck off. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[Skittles]

102. I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE

YES INDEED

[Squinch]

104. I am glad, Skittles!

Your posts give me joy. Glad to return a little of it.

[MadrasT]

105. Co-approve.

Love you and Skittles both.

[Squinch]

126. .

[nomorenomore08]

107. How about the "personal responsibility" of progressives to support, and not belitte, issues of

importance to women? Anti-feminist (e.g. complaining about "feminazis&quot =/= progressive politics in my book.

[theHandpuppet]

14. What gets me are all the in-your-face misogynists who run rampant...

... free to post, mock, shit-stir, flame bait and what-have-you as much as they like while sea gets sent to the closet every other week.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. thank you.

the hypocrisy here is absolutely maddening.

theHandpuppet

[theHandpuppet]

24. I would swear I think she's being stalked

Someone has made a hobby from alerting on her posts.

Back atcha!

[noiretextatique]

33. ditto

I am sure that is the case.

[BainsBane]

108. She's not the only one either.

[theHandpuppet]

116. That wouldn't surprise me

At some point there has to be an investigation into whether certain women at DU are being stalked and their posts unduly alerted on. But how do you get TPTB to instigate such an investigation? There's the rub. I think the situation is reaching critical mass.

Edited to add: Is this a topic that could be discussed in the Forum and Group Hosts board? I'm still not familiar with all the rules so I don't know if this would be kosher.

[BainsBane]

122. ATA is the place to raise it

But Skinner denies such problems exist. The jury system frees up their time, so the administrators are invested in maintaining the fiction that it is fair.

[theHandpuppet]

152. I guess I shouldn't say this...

But I don't have much faith in the jury system, honestly. Though I appreciate the many people who volunteer to serve, I think there are definitely some folks around who abuse it. I'll leave it at that, just to be polite.

[BainsBane]

156. I agree.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

137. -I- would not bring it up in Hosts. They have trouble doing their job as it is much less

add this to them.

[theHandpuppet]

154. Okay, thanks for the advice.

Just a little frustrated, I guess, because there really should be something we can do though I don't have any practical suggestions to offer.

[Violet_Crumble]

170. There's only one practical suggestion I can think of...

TA's correct that raising it in the Hosts forum wouldn't be a good idea. Forum hosts can't do anything and have no access to who alerts on what and only decide to lock or leave alerted OPs based on the SOP of the forum they're hosting. And sometimes they argue a lot over that, at least us GD hosts do, so giving them something different would probably play out something like this:

1. You post your question.
2. GD hosts descend on yr question, one of them goes searching back through every word Skinner's ever written on DU and a big fight breaks out over the meaning of the word consensus resulting in 200 posts in less than two hours.
3. You get sick of it and lock yr OP to stop the shit-fight and wander back here none the wiser
4. In the meantime the GD host who spent hours poring over Skinners every word at DU starts a new thread in the hosts forum titled '(GD) What is the definition of consensus in relation to coming to a decision on discussing alert-stalking at DU?'
5. A lone GD host appears and decides that thread title is an OP in GD and goes off searching for it so they can lock it and never returns.
6. Other GD hosts arrive who contribute another 200 posts arguing about what consensus means and what situations it's not necessary in.
7. One GD host mentions in the thread that they really hate cute kitten OPs and think they are destroying GD. Everyone else ignores that host.
8. A few GD hosts start yelling at each other about the lack of consistency they've seen in each other from previous arguments about the meaning of consensus, call each other wankers and storm off to start their own host forum OPs on the meaning of consensus.
9. EarlG steps in and locks all the threads on consensus that sprung up.
10. None of them notice that in the meantime (here's my practical suggestion) you've gone over to ATA and posted something along the lines of 'Could you tell us if there's a pattern of alert stalking against Seabeyond? If there is, are there steps you'd take to stop people who would be abusing the alert system from doing it?' I dunno, maybe clarify what you mean by alert stalking (eg the same person repeatedly alerting against the same person) and keep yr fingers crossed he answers, coz I've noticed he doesn't answer a lot of questions nowadays...

[Agschmid]

172. Incredibly accurate.

[etherealtruth]

23. No doubt

One can (almost) post any hateful misogynistic garbage and get a pass (most of the time) ... confront the hate head on, and suffer consequences.

This is not unique to women and women's issues ... there seems to be a lot of tolerance for racism, as well (and it plays out the same ... the one that confronts the racist garbage is the one that is hidden)

[Louisiana1976]

85. +1 million

[nomorenomore08]

111. Because the one who doesn't accept the status quo is the "troublemaker."

A similar dynamic to bullied children being punished for fighting back.

[etherealtruth]

129. Yep, and it plays out here ... over and over

[DonCoquixote]

28. a Men

Simply put, the bullies here, most of them of a certain gender and status that is annoyed at having to lose that status (BUT DO NOT DARE CALL IT PRIVILEDGE) are taking pothots and snipes until they can drive all the people they do not like out. They feel they have an inherent right to offend, put down, and threaten, and half of them believe they are really liberals.

To quote Joe Hill; "do not mourn, organize!" For every Seabeyond you send to the rigged penalty box, two more will see that behind all this bravado, you little boys are scared shitless, scared of the fate you have long deserved!

PS: Skinner, if Discussionist does not take off, stuff like this will show why. Yes, the priviledged shit stirrers will galdy pay for their little sandbox where they can post manifestos about how evil women and minorities are, but they will not keep it there. Weak minds, which bullies have, will always try to dominate and consume, and they will use their high 5's over there to plan stuff over here, at which point, many people that were your friends and alies will simply say "there are better places to be."

[noiretextatique]

37. +1000000

Well said!

[Louisiana1976]

86. Exactly. I'm on Discussionist, and you're right about bullies who try to dominate

and consume.

[Squinch]

91. Well said.

[CTyankee]

95. quite true. I tried, but then abandoned, Discussionist. I don't have time for it or the patience...

[noiretextatique]

29. damn right

It is absurd.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. SERIOUSLY!!!

Fucking bullshit is what it is.

[whathehell]

17. No, you're not..Happy Fourth, Seabee. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. yes ... see below ... and thanks

<---- my country right or wrong

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. The women that support these men or the women that sit all ladylike and well mannered and well

behaved and refuse to sally their manicured hands need to move aside and let the rest of us get to work.

They need to be ladylike enough to stay the hell outta my way.


If they can't get on board then, the least they can do is, STFU and, let the rest of us get our hands dirty since they are too fucking lady like.

I FIGHT FOR THOSE TOO LADY LIKE TO REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED THIS WEEK.

[Louisiana1976]

88. Yes. They need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Orrex]

25. How is it a travesty?

The posts currently on her transparency page seem like reasonable Hides to me.


And I expect that the discussion resulting from the SCOTUS' disgusting decision will still be going on when she returns in a week.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. Sorry, JTFrog. Had to rethink that one. Thanks for understanding.

peace.

[JTFrog]

36. No worries.

[Orrex]

39. That doesn't exactly answer the question.

Why is it a travesty that someone with visible transparency is on time-out?


Her five most recent Hides occurred in GD by the way, so it would appear that she likes to play in the GD sandbox as well.

[DonCoquixote]

46. because time and time again

people have bragged about using the jury system to get rid of her.

[Orrex]

51. I would be interested to read that bragging.

[DonCoquixote]

55. hey ladies

some of you have the archives, can you direct this person that way? You know, ones where people actually say stuff like "one more vote and we get rid of her" if nothing else, i can sure I can get SB to show me them once she is back from "Vacation."

Realy juror number whatever..."vacation?" That is like calling a trip to Siberia a "ski trip."

[Orrex]

57. Thanks---I look forward to it.

Do you think that her current five hides were unjustified?

[DonCoquixote]

61. nope

saly langauge, yes, but nothing that violated the tos. And one of them was a poltical post withing the HoF group dealing with a certain lady caught doing handpuppets named Iverglas.

[Orrex]

67. Well, ok.

The current hides were all in GD.

I won't belabor the point except to say that at least five people in each case seem to have thought that each post merited a hide.

Skinner doesn't seem to feel that the jury system is being abused, and I am inclined to defer to his assessment.

[DonCoquixote]

83. seriously, what violated the Tos?

which is what we are supposed to go by?

and just because five people said something does not mean anything; in Old Dixie, you could easily find five people that wanted to lynch someone, that does not make a lynching a valid proper form of jurisprudence.

[Orrex]

87. A TOS violation is not required.

If you alert on a post, you're given these options:

Reason for your alert:

This discussion thread is off-topic, or violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

This post includes a copyright violation.

This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.

All that is required to alert on a post is that one or more of these criteria are met. It's then up to the jury to decide if the post should be hidden. The post needn't violate the TOS, though that would likely satisfy the criteria as well.

and just because five people said something does not mean anything; in Old Dixie, you could easily find five people that wanted to lynch someone, that does not make a lynching a valid proper form of jurisprudence.

Unless you're suggesting that a randomly-chosen pool of DUers is as monolithic about Seabeyond as Old Dixie was about lynching, then I'm also not sure that this analogy works.

[DonCoquixote]

96. so then

if all that is needed is:
"This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"

Then forums will be useless, as anyone could get tagged for so much as liking the wrong type of soft drink. Seabeyond certainly did not violate the other three. Why, people might think YOU are disruptive by coming onto this group (HOF) and insulting SB (as it violates the purpose of this forum, for those in this group to talk about HOF, including the fact that SB got punished, and that causes anger among most of the HOF.) You certainly get the insenstive remark, as it would be on thing to say this in GD, but another to attack SB here. There, you just made enough for an alert. See how silly your point is?

and about Dixie, when SB comes back, i am sure you will find lots of monlothic idiots againmst SB. of course, the ToS means I cannot call them out, though they have insulted and threatened me with impunity. See the same names over and over and over again.

[Orrex]

99. If the hosts ask me to exit the group I will of course do so

I don't feel that I've been rude or insulting, but YMMV. The "over the top, rude or insulting" criterion appears to be invoked quite a bit, so maybe I'm guilty of that as well.

If you feel that my posts should be hidden then I have no wish nor power to stop you from Alerting on them. I defer to the jury's opinion.

You and I have different views on the nature of SB's posts and style. I would not feel comfortable likening her two-dozen Hides to a campaign of racist vigilante murder, however.

[BainsBane]

109. How odd we had people championing salty language when used to insult women

which is apparently its true purpose, but when it's used to confront misogyny, then it's OTT. We were told we were RWers for objecting to the use of the word c.,,,t, but Sea's use of salty language is hidden. The hypocrisy is obvious. No one believes it is anything but political; it's about keeping DU as a space for white male privilege where feminists and people of color are kept in their place. It's the same reason a number of members of the African American group are alert stalked. You may be comfortable with a community where white males wield all the power, but don't for a second pretend it is liberal or progressive, because it isn't.

When juries vote to allow vulgar insults to women but hide responses to them, it shows precisely what the standards of this community are. The incredible double standard enforces a climate where women and people of color need to keep their mouths shut in the face of their white male superiors.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

110. Boom. There it is.

[sheshe2]

148. Nailed it!

[redqueen]

149. Yes.

How odd.

[laundry_queen]

206. +1 nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. Shall we discuss them one by one, Orrex? I think that is reasonable. Shall you go first? Please do.

Shall I fix you a cool beverage while you compose your reply?

Would you care for some hor d'oeuvres?

Please show us the error of our ways , Oh Kind and Merciful Gentleman.

We await further instruction ...

I bow before thee.

[Orrex]

81. Perhaps you could indicate specifically why you think the hides are unwarranted.

Can you honestly say that anything I might say could convince you that the hides are justified?

[DonCoquixote]

114. well later in the thread

a fpormer mod named the magistrate commented and said he only found one that violated any terms.

[Orrex]

131. True, but Violet Crumble has handily addressed that concern

In short, at DU3 it's not about whether a post violates DU2's ToS but whether a post violates DU3's community standards.

[DonCoquixote]

147. True, but I adressed that concern

Where is shouwed how, by the letter of the law, you yourself would have been the target of a hide. Note, i am not saying you should have been, but under DU@, it is easy to basicly say a version of "he offended me" which can become Guillotine for all speech more controversial than talk of today's breakfast

[Orrex]

150. Your discussion of pancakes offends me

I see what you're saying about the subjectivity of it, so I can hardly gripe if I get something hidden. My only hide to date seemed questionable to me, but I guess I need to take my own medicine in that regard.

[DonCoquixote]

167. noted, however

In the big picture, it does not matter about griping, or any one person being offended. What matters is whether or not people can discuss our nation's politics, without it becoming either a shouting match, or some variable for the sneaky to manipulate.

[Orrex]

168. At the risk of sounding like I'm passing judgment...

I would say that your post is 100% correct.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

120. I love it when my questions are answered with questions.

Perhaps, you realize how passive aggressive you sound.

Can you honestly not take each hide one by one (please do go back to her Very First One Ever) and explain to us why YOU would have voted to hide it.

Dear Orrex, pray tell,

how many times you have juried a seabeyond post?

How many times have you alerted a seabeyond post?

[Orrex]

128. You place me in a diificult position

If I analyze her20+ hides for you, I risk accusations of stalking and obsession, and to what end? Will you give my analysis an honest reading, or will you dismiss it as the rambling of someone with a grudge?

Does that seem more reasonable to you than my request that you indicate why her current five Hides should not have been hidden?

If you think it will be helpful, then I will provide your analysis, but it will take a little time.

To date I have alerted on exactly one post on DU3, and it wasn't one of hers. To the best of my knowledge I have juried none of her posts.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. since I asked for it why would I then turn around and accuse you of stalking and being

obsessed?

Do you doubt my honesty, Orrex? Do I strike you as insincere? All these years you and I have been on here and you ask this about me? Really? You do not know me any better than that?

Why do you hold a grudge against seabeyond?

and Yes, I think I made a reasonable request given how you came into this protected group with your tone and style.

[Orrex]

143. In point of fact, I do not hold a grudge against her or anyone

I expressed the concern that my analysis would be dismissed as grudge-driven ramblings.

Why did you ask how many of SB's posts I've alerted on or juried?

I think I made a reasonable request given how you came into this protected group with your tone and style.

I don't believe that I have been rude or uncivil. You have accused me of passive-aggressiveness, but that's a tricky accusation on par with calling someone "defensive" or "outraged." That is, any response to the accusation is taken as proof of the accusation.

Again, I defer to the Alert button and to the hosts of this group if my "tone and style" are unacceptable.

Do you doubt my honesty, Orrex? Do I strike you as insincere? All these years you and I have been on here and you ask this about me? Really? You do not know me any better than that?

Maybe you're not the one(s) I'm worried about. And since your honesty is not in question, I ask again what I might hope to gain by explaining 20+ jury verdicts.

I will get to work on addressing SB's 20+ Hides.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

144. in a hurry, orrex = multitasking today but please

read and think about posts # 25, 109 and 112 in this thread. on edit = also post 111

25 is your original post and 109 and 112 explains why We see it as a travesty and that you don't see it that way gives us the perception (rightly or wrongly) that you do not even get why feminism and DU3 are having such a HUGE disconnect.

There are absolutely some nasty people on DU3 and they have been given a very wide berth on here in which to disrupt and play games.

People say we call out in HoF.

I say, look to The Lounge and a couple of Lounge Hosts for some the nastiest most passive aggressive call outs it has ever been my displeasure to witness.

The Lounge is Dead and They Killed it. May it rest in peace.

I do appreciate your wife's contributions in there but, I fear it is way too little and way too late.

She is trying to revive a corpse that is long dead and rotting in its grave.

[Orrex]

178. Well, here goes. By request:

6/15/2014, verdict 4-3
I think the impression here is that seabeyond was using "pieces of shit" to refer to those DUers who had posted about "stare rape," rather than referring to the purveyors of that bullshit meme. I would have voted to Leave it, and I would have added a comment explaining what I thought was seabeyond's intent. This is the one that Agschmid reposted as a test, when it survived jury review.

5/29/2014, verdict 4-3
A bit of a gray area. I gather that she is referring to "entitled little boys" in an abstract sense, but I can see how others might see it as men-in-general. This hinges on the oft-discussed problem of making statements about "men" rather than clearly indicating "some men."
I would likely have voted to Leave this one, but can understand why 4 voted to Hide it.

5/5/2014, verdict 4-3
Pretty clearly a direct insult and call-out. I would have voted to Hide it.

4/12/2014, verdict 4-3
Backstory. I don't know what's gone on between seabeyond and Neoma, but I would have voted to Leave this one.

3/26/2014, verdict 4-2
I can see how some might consider her language to be over-the-top. Doesn't really cross my threshold, though, so I'd have voted to Leave it.

11/23/2013, verdict 4-2
In the context of the thread, particularly reply #121, this strikes me as a reasonable Hide because it is uncivil at face value and because polly7 had specifically asked seabeyond not to get personal. I recall that this post was defended as not actually saying "fuck you" to polly7, but it seems that several people took it that way. In addition, although people apparently do like to goad seabeyond, she also clearly enjoys goading others as well. As a standalone post I wouldn't have voted to Hide this one. In the context of the thread, I would have.

10/30/2013, verdict 4-2
Again, a bit over the top, and I think that it was the choice of phrasing that doomed her. I would have voted to Hide it.

10/23/2013, verdict 5-1
Entirely justified IMO, and seabeyond even welcomed this particular Hide. I see no reason to dispute it.

4/5/2013, verdict 4-2
I don't know the backstory on this one. If I'd been on the jury, I'd have voted to Leave it.

3/24/2013, verdict 4-2
More backstory, and she was clearly being goaded here. I would have voted to Leave it.

3/12/2013, verdict 5-1
A direct personal insult/attack. I would also have voted to Hide.

3/8/2013, vertict 4-2
Honestly, I would have voted to Leave this one, because seabeyond was clearly using hyperbole to make a point.

2/16/2013, verdict 4-2
More backstory that I don't know about, but if I'd been on the jury, I'd have voted to Leave it.

2/1/2013, verdict 4-2
I think I would have voted to Hide this one. Although seabeyond is again using hyperbole to make a point, I believe that she went a little too far here.

12/27/2013, verdict 4-2
This one's a little trickier. She's specifically targeting three DUers and calling them "beyond stupid, weak and petty," which would likely have been Hide-worthy outright if it had been posted in GD. However, I sense that her choice to post in HoF created the impression that she retreated in order to hurl insults from a safe haven. I admit that I would be interested to know who Alerted on this one, but I would likely have voted to Hide it.

12/27/2013, verdict 4-2
Hard to say. She was goaded, yes, but she's clearly calling pintobean a liar. I would likely have voted to Hide for that reason, and I'd have added a comment to that effect.

11/27/2013, verdict 4-2
Sufficiently over-the-top to justify the Hide IMO.

11/12/12013, verdict 5-1
Although it can be argued that she is using "you" in the general sense here, it seems fairly reasonable to infer that she was calling the poster a "mean, bullying asshole." I wuold have voted to Hide it.

11/6/2013, verdict 4-2
I would absolutely have voted to Leave this one, and I have no idea why this post wasn't Hidden.

11/8/2012, verdict 4-2
I don't understand this one at all. I would have voted to Leave it.

5/4/2012, verdict 5-1
A reasonable verdict IMO. She is again using mocking hyperbole to make a point, but I believe that she went over the top. I would have voted to Hide regardless of the author.
[hr]
[hr]
So there we have it. 11 votes to Hide and 10 to Leave.

I disagreed with a number of verdicts here, but my overall vote:verdict average as a juror has been about 70%, so I'm often in the minority anyway. I don't think that most of the alerts were entirely unwarranted, aside from the one or two that I noted above.

Honestly, this has been more informative that I anticipated. Although I don't see clear evidence of a campaign against her, I do get the sense that people are hiding her posts due to their style at least as often as for their content. People who know her are more likely to understand her writing style, so it may be that posts are hidden because jurors don't "get" her.

This raises a philosophical question: is that the fault of the writer fault or the readers? All else being equal, I'd put it on the writer, since they're in control of what goes on the page. Sometimes the reader may not be willing to dig into the history and subtext, and in a format like DU that's understandable. She's definitely a lightning rod. I wonder how many times juries have voted to Leave her posts.

I've seen people post (politely) to suggest to seabeyond that she take more care in composing her messages, and she seems in most cases to have received these suggestions in their intended spirit. The limitations of the format are famously problematic when it comes to conveying sarcasm. Reviewing the alerted-on posts, this seems be a factor in a number of her Hides.

Let me underscore that these are simply my impressions, which I am offering here specifically because I was asked for them. I'm not presuming to speak for anyone else, nor do I claim any particular authority to issue objective proclamations of fact.

As you can see from the most recent five alerts, she wouldn't currently be on time-out if it were up to me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

179. A fair and honest asessement ...

I might argue/debate the finer points of three or four of them, only because I know more of the back story and, in context of the threads wonder why and how and by whom Those Were Alerted.

I am not given to Alerting so I really don't understand the concept.

Thank you for taking the time and given it some serious thought.

Peace.

[Orrex]

203. For the record...

I wouldn't have hidden this one either.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

204. ah yes ... the already Infamous ...

bullshit hide.

yes, that one is also notable in that there were absolutely NO COMMENTS from anyone.

[Squinch]

62. Most of them would never have been hidden if another person wrote them.

[Orrex]

66. That's an interesting claim. How might we verify this?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. I, for one, would like to see ALL of seabeyond's hidden posts since the inception of DU3

I want to see WHO alerted and WHO were the jurors.

[theHandpuppet]

69. Yes. THAT is what I'd surely like to see.

I want to see who's doing the targeting. It's only fair.

[Orrex]

73. The hidden messages are easy enough to find

Here are the Google results, though with possible duplication.

Short of having individual alerters or jurors voluntarily self-identify, I don't know how this information might otherwise be revealed.

Again, Skinner has stated that alert-stalking does not occur, and that the alert system is not abused. Since he is in a position to make that determination, I'm willing to accept his findings.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. OK, I am just going to say it out loud. I am NOT willing to take Skinner's word on this. I want to

see and decide for myself.

While I am at it, I think The Hosting system needs some serious rethinking to the point that it be done away with altogether in the Main Forums.

I do realize that this is Skinner's playground and I accept that I HAVE to accept his word about seabeyond but, in my OWN mind I question it.

According to The Magistrate's post below, if I am understanding it correctly, then it seems I have some validity to my curiosity.

[Orrex]

80. It's fair to question it, sure.

I won't dispute The Magistrate's assessment, even if I don't entirely agree with it.

The question was raised in ATA about hiding the identity of the alerted-on poster so that jurors are required to consider the post on its own terms. Skinner responded that it is reasonable to weigh a poster's history and the particular post's broader context when rendering a verdict.

I'm not sure that this is inappropriate. It is common to see replies in-thread that call a person out for their history (of misogyny, of conservative talking points, or dog whistles, etc.) If the consensus of randomly chosen jurors is that a poster's history informs a current verdict, then who is to say that they're wrong? Should this be offset? If so, then how?

If jurors' names are supposed to be hidden, at least from other DUers, then that anonymity should not be breached lightly.

[theHandpuppet]

82. I would agree that anonymity should not be breached lightly

There should be, however, some mechanism in place to ascertain whether a particular poster is being targeted or stalked.

[Louisiana1976]

89. I agree. And this should be true on Discussionist as well.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

119. Personally, I think the post only should be judged.

No names at all should be visible and no link to the thread or group should be accessible. Host duty should be done away with.

[theHandpuppet]

127. I agree with a portion of your suggestion

I also don't think names of the poster or group should be visible and only the post should be judged. However, I would not be in favor of doing away with hosts. I agree there are abuses of the system but a lot of that (IMHO) stems from hosts not enforcing the SOP. On the other hand, hosts can serve an important function in keeping a group "on topic" and from getting hijacked, as it were.

I host only a small group (Appalachia group) but should any problems arise I am glad to be there should someone need to bring an issue to my attention. Hosts of small groups also post a lot to keep those spaces going. Should any trolls descend upon us, I at least have the ability to lock a thread until the issue can be further discussed. I've never had to use these particular hosting abilities but I consider it a serious responsibility.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

134. Maybe, if admin allowed the rest of us to :read only: the host group I could agree otherwise

it smack of the cool kids table and comes across as Very Juvenile.

I know.

I used to Host.

ugh.

I lost respect for a lot of DUers that I used to hold in high regard. It smacks of dirty politics especially when you have been around as long as I have and know the dynamics of certain cliques.

MIRt has some of this to a lesser degree but, MIRt actually DOES THEIR JOB.

I have also been stalked on here by married men. Three to put a number to it and one drunk married man sent me a PM one night years ago asking me if I web-cammed. uhm, GROSS.


I have been told in this group that "unflattering pictures" of me were PMd to another DUer by a Third DUer. Boston Bean made this person delete that comment and I have no idea WTF how, or by whom and I suspect it was bold faced lie by either the person making the comment or else the third party sent pictures claiming they were of me.

With that said, I have also made Some Real Friends here. Some I have met in real life and others I want to meet and am planning meet-ups in some near/far future.

[theHandpuppet]

153. I'm pretty new to hosting and newer still to any kind of adminstrative duties

I don't even know the meaning of half the acronyms folks toss around in their conversations so I'm rather hesitant to butt in.

[RiffRandell]

195. It was me, and I don't lie.

After the dog comment you made to me I was pm'd pictures of you THAT I DID NOT SHARE WITH ANYONE AND DELETED.

I'm a decent enough person to not engage in petty matters to share pictures. That is so Junior High.

Anything else, take it up with me.

[BainsBane]

196. Yet you brought it up

and used it against her in an argument. Otherwise no one would even know about it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

198. smh, Baines. just smh. I understand she has been flagged for review.

I wonder if the child plans to ride my coat tails for ever. What exactly does she get out of all this? Especially at this late date.

She has worn out that old T-shirt and, I'll be damned if I buy her another one.

Seems like she would want to distance herself from me.

And lord, the PM brouhaha she has stirred up with the picture fiasco is beyond stupid.

Drama and intrigue, some people thrive on it, seems to me.

[BainsBane]

200. Never fear

She has a new obsession. See the HOF thread on Q's PPR.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

202. Going to look now. This must be why she is

Flagged for review.

[Squinch]

90. We might look at all the astonishingly crappy posts that other people post that are not hidden by

juries.

[Orrex]

92. A good start, I agree

The relative crappiness is difficult to assess on objective scale, and we would have to account for variations of sentiment between one jury and another, but your suggestion makes a good deal of sense.

[Squinch]

93. Is there a reason you are feeling the need to give your seal of approval as to whether you think

our posts make sense?

[Orrex]

94. What manner of response would you have preferred?

You posted a suggestion that I found to be quite sensible. I made no statement of absolute value, nor do I presume to hold any special authority to judge in any absolute sense.

Since you were replying to my request for a suggestion, it seemed polite to respond to your suggestion.

Forgive me, but it seemed as though we were engaged in an exchange of thoughts. Is there a reason you are feeling that I shouldn't have replied?

[Squinch]

97. It's just that you appear to need to tell us if you think we pass some muster of which

you are the arbiter.

[Orrex]

98. I'm the arbiter of my own opinion

I don't think that I made any broader claim than that, except when I've quoted others in a way that seemed to me relevant to the subject at hand.

Others here have expressed opinions without explicitly disclaiming them as such, so I felt that I was adhering to that standard. If that's not the case then I apologize.

[Agschmid]

173. So I tested this theory... and in fact you are correct.

At least on this one-off example:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

On Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:56 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Piece of shit, scared little men that have to make shit up to create a controversy to shut those...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5205039

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Personal attack, broadbrush attack on DUers, name calling, liar accusation

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jul 7, 2014, 01:03 AM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It does belong on DU, but the poster's reaction doesn't
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Read in context, I see no problem with the comment.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, alerter, this post seems aimed at the MRA's on 4-chan, etc
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: inartfully put, but clearly not an attack on DU per se.

And no you can't alert on yourself, I recruited some help to complete this test. I didn't change much in the post just added some ellipses (which I am known for).

[Squinch]

174. This is pretty ingenous of you, and I have to say that I am not surprised about the outcome.

Thank you for proving the point.

[redqueen]

180. Color me so very unsurprised.

Thanks for that.

[JustAnotherGen]

181. Oh wow!

Just wow!

See we knew - we knew. There was a privilege post I made a few months ago - seabeyond provided the subject matter. Lots of recs and tons of responses.

If she had posted it - the entire thing would have been given a lock/hide.

More proof. Thank you!

[BainsBane]

182. How about testing some of my hides?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

183. don't you have a hide for this =

that is all there is to the post, right ... r.o.f.l.

am I remembering correctly?

[BainsBane]

185. And my most recent one from last night

which I don't dare link to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

186. PM me, please Baines

Sorry, I can't keep up with all this right now, too much going on irl.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

184. is that also the exact wording of the alert message on sea's post?

very interesting.

[Agschmid]

187. Not sure, I made sure my alerter did not hold back.

[nomorenomore08]

112. I think the point has more to do with the stuff that *doesn't* get hidden.

Those who perceive a double standard around here aren't without justification.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

140. and again = Boom. There it is.

thank you.

[Half-Century Man]

38. I miss her wisdom on the issue (and owe her a reply via e-mail).

What these five fools have so beautifully articulated is the absolute need for separation of church and state. A set of personal convictions so easily emotionally manipulated into doing harm on a grand scale, based solely on others having a different set personal convictions, needs to be kept as far away from wielding governmental power as possible.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. dare I say = AMEN ? LOL ... we need a word for that closure, for that finality.

for that all encompassing alpha/omega. One that does not reek of religion.

thank you, Half-Century Man

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. Seabeyond just sent me a PM ... posting it with her permission ... Her thoughts about today =

my youngest. he likes all holidays. every single one. ones in other countries. whatever special day. we have had almost 17 yrs of holidays in this house, that we always play in, cause of who he is.

this morning, he got up and said.... gonna go to hastings and get a "american" coffee drink to celebrate 4th. (my oldest is working there and working today. coffee, the net, and hangin with brother).

i told him

i have always enjoyed the 4th. for *all my* yrs i have enjoyed the fourth. and honestly? this fourth, i am not there. not feeling it.

sc saying i am not equal to you. sc saying men are allowed to discriminate against me.

he made a comment about celebrating another countries independence.

i told him

but... THIS is my country.

my country.

and i am not equal.

it wasnt about lecturing or educating, again. it was how i feel in my heart today.

[DonCoquixote]

45. a revealing vote

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jul 4, 2014, 12:50 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ..........
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The games people play...
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not a frequent visitor to H of Fem, but think they should be able to ban libodem. Obvious attempt to start trouble, for no reason.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you don't want people to remark on her "vacation", don't bring it up yourself. seabeyond is one of the most belligerent DUers we have. If she could learn to be less hostile in her posts, they'd have far more impact.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Flamebaiting, misogynist troll.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Awww. Looks like we can't handle a difference of opinion. LEAVE IT

Thank you.

So, we get two votes by that brave and effective protector of bullies "No explanation given." One whose malice for seabeyond drips, as well as a propensity to order people around "don't bring it up yourself" and lastly some little brat that goes Awww, as if anyone that disagrees with it or his friends attempt to bully and belittle is to be scorned. Never mind that the only reason this post is up because because it was hidden by two COWARDS who were either too scared to admit why they voted, or too lazy, in which case, they had no buisness voting.

Seriously, I am half tempted to post my own version of the DUzy awards, one dedicated to lousy Jury decisions.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. thanks for posting the results, DonCoquixote

I am confused. Was my OP alerted or a reply made in this thread to libodem? was it my reply to libodem that was alerted? thanks.

[DonCoquixote]

50. Libodem

because I felt he displayed behavior worthy of an aleret,, which is why he is on my ignore list.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

58. thank you. and I have been informed that he is a she, although it matters not and, I always thought

they were a he, too.

but, it matters not.

We are all Human.

This is a Human Rights Issue at stake here.

[The Magistrate]

53. Just Went Through The Hides, Ma'am

Speaking as a long-service moderator, I can see only one that might be viewed as a legitimate removal, and that on an older ground of explicitness relating to sexual activity. None of the rest met any criteria we were used to employ regarding personal or group attacks, or accusations of trolling, or anything else.

One can only conclude a fair portion of the people summoned to jury on those alerts were moved by some animus and took the chance offered to exercise it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. Thank you, The Magistrate, And a Happy Fourth to you, sir.

[theHandpuppet]

70. Just what I suspected.

Many thanks for your research.

[JustAnotherGen]

75. Thank you The Magistrate

I'm still learning to navigate/understand that board as a group host. But as I suspected. As I suspected.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. I don't often disagree with you, Sir, but I do in this case. This isn't DU2..

There are no moderators, there's no longer the rules that moderators used back there, and when there were moderators, there was a general perception amongst DUers, sometimes deservedly, that there was a lack of consistency in enforcing the rules. There was a complete lack of transparency at DU2, and after initial reservations about DU3 with its hosts and juries, despite the inbuilt and sometimes annoying lack of consistency with the jury system, it's a vast improvement on DU2. So, those hidden posts shouldn't be judged by DU2 standards, but by the community standards of DU3, and to be able to judge in an informed way, people need to be able to see the wording of an alert, and how the jury voted, and what if anything they said in their comments.

In this case I've only seen the jury results for the most recent hide. There was no animosity in the comments that voted to hide, and no assumption can be logically made that those who voted to hide without comment held any animosity. I agree with the most recent and oldest hides (i'm aware that even though I'm a member, participant, a woman, a feminist, and a co-founder of this group that in saying that I agree with those two hides, there may be calls for me to be voted off the island), but posted in GD when people were talking about one of the other hides that I didn't think it was hideworthy and would have voted to leave it. As yr aware from our association in the I/P group at DU, I have a few friends who cross the line when it comes to civility. I've been on juries where posts from people I really like have been alerted and if I feel violate the community standards (mine are if a post is a personal attack, bigoted, RW, or creepy) I'll vote to hide regardless of my like or dislike of the person who posted it. I've also voted to leave posts from DUers I don't think highly of if I don't think their post crosses the line that I've set for posts I think are worthy of hiding.

When it comes to DUers who get to take a ride on the Time Out Train, there's a few common themes. Of the ones I'm aware of, there's not a single one whose absence makes DU a lesser place to hang out at. Sure, there's one in particular I miss as we have a similar sense of humour, but even in his case DU hasn't been deprived of wisdom or energy during his time-out. All of them, with no exceptions, should be holding themselves responsible for their time-outs, not blaming everyone else for it. If people don't hold themselves responsible in any way for their hidden posts and don't even consider examining how they post, the likelihood is that they'll become a frequent flier with time-outs and history will keep on repeating itself. If I were ever in the position where I had four hidden posts, I'd be making my posts so damn vanilla that there's no way any jury could vote to hide them...

[The Magistrate]

117. I Am Aware, Ma'am, The Rules I Was Used To Apply No Longer Are In Force

I suspect they linger with many as a sort of customary usage, though, and so I do not think it completely without point or merit to point to them. I am also well aware this person can be quite abrasive. Owing to this, a great many here do not like her. I understand that, in some degree, that is how the system in place now is intended to work; a person who offends or annoys a great many people may be at greater risk from jury action in consequence. The most recent hide is the one I meant when I said one would probably have been removed by moderator action. I agree that the oldest of them was about the roughest. We would seem in agreement, though, that the others really would not have been actionable, and were not good hides even by current standards. My comment should be taken as no more or less than I stated: applying the standards I was used to applying as a moderator, I would have voted to remove only one. The rest I would have stated come near the line, maybe right up to it, but stay in bounds. I do not particularly like this member; I do not agree with her on a number of things. But I recognize the signs of a hunting pack directed at one member; it was a thing we would occasionally find happening from a moderator's vantage. I did not like them then, and I do not like them now.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Yeah, I'm in agreement with most of what you said there...

All I know was that if I were one of the DUers who for whatever reason offends or annoys a great number of other DUers, I'd be trying my hardest to ensure that I don't give them any reason to hide my posts. Luckily for me I'm rather boring and unassuming, so those few who I annoy greatly tend to be obvious about it and go straight on my jury blacklist...

[BainsBane]

151. you were assuming votes based

On content rather than personal animus, as far too many think is acceptable, just as abusive insults toward some members are left as a matter of course.

I will say I told Sea off over that last hide, not because I actually think it was just but because she has had that sort of thing hidden before. Knowing the jury system is unfair means some of us simply don't have the same freedom of expression others do. To remain active one has to skillfully navigate that double standard.

That, however, doesn't mean I don't get angry when I see people engage in clearly hypocritical perpetuation of that double standard.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

165. To remain active one has to skillfully navigate that double standard.

slither like a snake through the rocky terrain that is DU3.

[BainsBane]

123. actually you make a habit of

Excusing the most uncivil posts while condemning far less offensive post by members of this group. Not only that , you insist we have no right to even FEEL offended when insulted in the most vile terms by people you clearly feel are allowed to treat us like garbage. To pretend you are objective or sympathetic to members here doesn't pass the laugh test. Your opinion on these matters is entirely based on personal animosity and most of us here right through your charade.

[Violet_Crumble]

125. That post was totally uncalled for...

May I suggest that if you do feel the urge to respond to me, you at least read what yr replying to? Because what you posted has zero to do with what the Magistrate and I were discussing, and is totally incorrect. A point you seem to ignore is that I'm a member of this group and I participate in this group and have some good discussions about feminism and get on well with all but a few, who I tend to leave alone in the hope that they'll leave me alone. I have NEVER insisted that 'we' have no right to feel offended when insulted (btw, I'm feeling pretty offended right now by the insulting post I'm replying to). I'm not pretending anything at all, so you may want to get yr laugh test thing recalibrated. Also, there's no charade from me. I'm always up front and honest, and if it is true, which I sincerely hope it isn't, that most members of HoF think there's some charade they're seeing through and want me gone from here, I hope they'll tell me that, because coming from you, I'm tending not to believe it at all.

Have a lovely day!

[hlthe2b]

139. Hey folks. I truly understand the feelings expressed....

I also realize that even among HOF members, we will have disagreement. Emotions have been understandably raw for some time and increasingly so, given recent events. I know mine have. Still, I'd like to think we can disagree strongly with each other when the need arises, but without personal issues coming in.

One of the threads for which sea received a hide, included some posters rehashing all the old painful issues of years past that we've all tried so hard to move forward from. I surely don't want HOF to experience anything similar to those unfortunate painful days. I surely hope all understand where I'm coming from and that this is a general statement not targeted at any one person in this thread....

Times like this we just need to stick together, I think... Sometimes that may mean agreeing to disagree.

[nomorenomore08]

113. "One can only conclude a fair portion... were moved by some animus..."

I'm thinking the same thing myself.

[greatlaurel]

64. Can you link to what happened? I've been really busy and missed this latest attack on seabeyond.

It is clear this site, like most internet sites, have a number of posters who relish in misogynist writings. Many of the same posters seem to have a penchant for excusing racist behaviors, as well. Some of the same posters have a tendency to attack many Democratic Party candidates. It really appears to be a well orchestrated effort to suppress Democrats from expressing themselves. Most chillingly, these same posters seem to drive attacks on our posters who support strong Democratic candidates and positions while appearing to support weak candidates who are easily defeated by the GOP. There is a clear pattern.

The most disgusting attacks, however, seem to be reserved for women. Teachers get more than their fair share of abuse, but that goes along with the misogynist theme, since teaching has been a great profession for educated women.

Thanks for posting about this topic, Tuesday Afternoon. I appreciate it very much.

Have a great July 4th, Seabeyond. I am looking forward to seeing your posts, again. Keep up the good work.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. Because seabeyond has Five hides within a 90 day period she is not allowed to post until the

oldest one drops off. You can click on her profile and see her Transparency Tab is Yellow for all to view.

Count off since her earliest hide and that is when she can post again.

Hope this helps and thanks for the post.

[MadrasT]

103. It is a shame.

Regarding the rest of this thread... well... it isn't that hard to *not* accumulate hides. Avoid personal attacks. I am extremely direct and speak my mind, and have never had a hide. I don't attack people, I disagree with opinions.

In seabeyond's case, I believe her unique manner of expression causes some folks to misinterpret her remarks sometimes. I haven't analyzed her current 5 hides, perhaps there are some personal attacks, I don't know.

If you avoid attacks, express yourself clearly, and don't spew RW garbage or bigoted nonsense, it isn't that hard to avoid hides.

Also control your temper, LOL. I have typed out many an angry post and then thought "fuck it not worth it" and closed the window without hitting "post".

Arguing and debate are fun for some people, I don't enjoy it at all.

I do miss seabeyond and look forward to her return. I think she is delightful.

[Squinch]

176. But don't miss Agschmidt's experiment. Others can post exactly what she does and not be hidden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125546408#post114

My copy and paste isn't catching the right post. It's #173. Agschmidt wrote exactly what sea got hidden for and survived a jury 2-5.

[ismnotwasm]

115. Hell no

Fortunately this isn't the only game in town-- my SON shared mercury blues post on FB, and there are other avenues of expression, that reach more people.

Still, it is a travesty but I'll say it for her too ---We. told. You. So.

Of course there's the ones who think it's no big deal really, and were just all running around with our hair on fire.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

118. The sexual revolution was brought about because of BC.

Do men and women on here not realize how idiotic it all sounds to be arguing about it now? Accusing some of being prudes and others of being sluts when we all benefitted from BC.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. People like to goad seabeyond

The assholes who were utterly gleeful about the hobby lobby decision are still posting here. They are so damn obvious.

This place is hostile to feminists, blacks and other main constituents of the Democratic party. Funny how the same hostile folks are also very libertarian leaning IMO.

I know they despise me as well and I consider it a badge of honor.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

138. this is as true an assessment of the situation as anything else I have read.

I love sea but, she is "easily" goaded and there is not a passive bone in her body.

She does not understand how to play the passive aggressive game and that is a requirement for survival on DU3.

[el_bryanto]

145. That's a pity - i don't know why she gets such crap

She seems pretty level headed to me.

Bryant

[ismnotwasm]

146. LOL!!!!

SeaBeyond isn't even HERE and she gets a conversation going. That's the power of the women. And you can knock her down, but she gets right back up.

This thread is hilarious. Love ya Sea

[theHandpuppet]

155. Ha-ha!! That is pretty funny, isn't it?

In a way, sea wins in the end!

[BainsBane]

157. Whisp and Scootaloo are out too

I look forward to their return and input on this issue, as well as Sea's.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

158. Thanks for telling me. I did not know that. So mcuh goes on around here

I have no idea.

[BainsBane]

159. There are a boatload of people gone

More all the time. Three are regular HOF posters that I know of, but there may be more.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

160. more HoFers than GC&RKBAers ... ? what does that tell us ... ?

[BainsBane]

161. I think the latter have set up shop at Discussionist

but I'm not sure about that. I haven't as much as peeked in the Gungeon in several months. I do know that pro-gun is the dominant view on Discussionist.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

169. I quit GC&RKBA and haven't looked back. Something needs to be done and

from several angles. People need to be held accountable and preventative measures need to take place. I think as Democrats we can all agree on that much. The Devil is in the details as they say and I just don't care anything about hanging with the Devil so, no more GC&RKBA for me.

As for Discussionist, I have posted there but, not lately and not often.

Every time I sign on over there I am called to jury duty, if that tells you anything.

[Squinch]

175. Is there a place where we can see who is off in detention?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

188. a roster of timed out DUers with the date of re-entry? -

Not sure that is a good thing, Squinch.

[Squinch]

197. You are probably right.

[redqueen]

162. Damn, that must've been recent.

[BainsBane]

163. Scootaloo was a while ago

Whisp was a week or so ago.

[redqueen]

164. Well Scoot must have just recently got back cause he was the only person

to comment on my 'We don't want equality!' thread earlier today.

I thought I saw Whisp post earlier today but it may have been Warpy. I get those names mixed up.

[BainsBane]

166. Oh, awesome! Glad to hear he's back.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. Whoo hoo! Scoot's back? The I/P group's worth hanging out in again!

No offense to my comrades over there who I think are awesome and value highly, but Scoot really kicks arse in there and raises the humour level from zero to 10. I thought it sucked when I noticed he had a time-out, but he gets right down there in the mud and doesn't hold back with what he thinks, and most of his hides could have been avoided. Glad to see he's back though.

[JTFrog]

189. After seeing the shit that went down in the host forum,

all I can say is that I'm a little sorry for deleting my posts in this thread to "keep the peace". I won't be doing that again.

[BainsBane]

190. I didn't do it to "keep the peace"

I did it for the benefit of HOF and because a host here asked me to. Those two awesome women deal with a lot, and I want them to have my full support.

[JTFrog]

191. I pretty sure the hosts asked us for the purpose of "keeping the peace".

Doesn't mean I can't regret deleting my posts. Or that I will sit back and just watch the next time someone wants to come shit in the punch bowl. I don't know about you, but I'm a little fed up and a lot pissed off.

[BainsBane]

192. Oh believe me

I am definitely pissed off.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

193. The Host's Group ... ? What happened ... ? Was this thread involved in a

discussion in The Host's Group ... ?

JTFrog or Baines could one of you tell me in this thread or send me a PM.

What is going on here?

[MadrasT]

194. No shit. The "hosting" model is clearly broken.

Occasionally I wonder if this is really what the admins want DU to be.... have they just abandoned us to eat each other, Lord of the Flies style... while they play with their shiny new toy over at Discussionist?

If so, that is a shame but it is what it is.

I mean... any jackass with a star can be a host. And it doesn't take much to get a star.

There needs to be a higher bar for being a main forum host. And people who are disruptive need to be kicked off the island.

What we have now is completely dysfunctional. It may be a fun sociology project for somebody, but I know the DU community means/meant a lot to a lot of people and it is a just a shame.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

199. I agree with this assessment and I approve this message.

[DonCoquixote]

201. I will raise you one

Hosting and Jury are broke systems, not because they are bad, but because, like our politics, there is a refusal to acknowledge that the right wing (which includes what is called the "center&quot will outright game the system in order to keep their power. The most frustrating thing is that we are told to be nice and fair, when the MRAS and Center-bullies know they can drench themselves in blood and still not be caled out, the favorite kids, as opposed to we stepchildren. Even Discussionist's idea is flawed, because they opened to door to the very people that did damage to DU.

Let me be blunt: there was a time when I was hoping to crave enough out of my disability budget to be a star member. I would not now, although if I was told they were making a discussionst forum for the left, I would be there with bells on (even though some purist would consider me too centrist because I do not support Nader.)

I am not going to put extra care into a system that does not take care of itself, or at least address the fact that people are abusing it, and then brag about it over brandy and cigars.

[Agschmid]

205. They do kick them off, but I think we all have to remember the importance of the alert.

Just like MIRT without an alert I bet they don't like to take action. But really hell if I know what they are thinking...

[Orrex]

207. Okay, I'm stumped. Why was this one hidden?

WTF?

Does anyone have the jury results?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

208. Here you go -

yes. further, with administration name, it just reinforces more and more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=50031

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Saying that admins here endorse and reinforce bigotry is extremely disruptive and over-the-top. This poster says Skinner, EarlG and Elad are "allowing" bigotry and are not "so awfully offended with this shit." That is a cheap and very inappropriate accusation.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Aug 31, 2014, 11:30 AM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Do you all realize how incredibly boring all of this is?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[Orrex]

209. Oh FFS

The ones who voted to Hide it should have the integrity to comment on it.

Thanks for posting.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

210. yw and I agree.

Hope things are well with the Orrex household these days