back!! getting old. lets place bets, how long do you think i have?

[seabeyond]

i have to assume no more cussin for me. i loves my cussin and love to play with cussin, but seems the goal posts have once again shifted and no cussin' for me. so, i was going to give myself a good solid two weeks. then i read skinners reply in ATA and i wonder if i simply have minutes. lol

i didnt ask anyone to put my hides in ATA. i didnt ask skinner to give his opinion of my hides. but, since he did, i guess i ought to clarify. cause when we have an opportunity to be understood, then i think we have a responsibility in that.

She told another DU member "who the fuck are you".

i TOLD? i told the poster, a poster with 60 post and less than two months on this board, a poster that went directly after me and bettyellen, two long time posters with insults? i TOLD him "who the fuck are you"?

what i did was ASK a new poster that came into a thread and attacked two long time posters....

who the fuck are you that you know the duers so well, after a couple months?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4520726

i asked a man who insulted betty and i, who he was. because, we know the men that are kicked off du merely change names and we deal with them repeatedly. i wanted to know, who this poster was. surely we should have an even playing field knowing what their previous handle was as their right to insult us meets community standard. yet, asking the poster who he is, is rolling the dice.

and when someone is defining me and my words, use the whole sentence, including the question mark.

i walk into an Op that was all about ridiculing and insulting some of the women on du. well into a thread of posters jumping in to play a game of insulting some of the members of du.

skinners assessment of that post and the juries response was.

The hideable offense is: The jury thought it was rude. (nt)

here is the "rude" comment:

i clearly stated the issue. you clearly said, fuck you. we will fuckin mock and insult you at will

tough fuckin shit to the hypocrisy of it cause does not matter. we will, because we can.

and if you are proud of that manny, so be it. nothing i can do about that. but it clearly shows the hypocrisy on du, and the bullying tactic used.

personally, i thought i was pretty civil considering there was a pretty long thread of duer after duer insulting me and a group of women. but... lets just say that juries decision was that i was rude.

On Tue Feb 18, 2014, 10:49 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

i clearly stated the issue. you clearly said, fuck you. we will fuckin mock and insult you at will
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4520291

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Um, is that what Manny said? This response seems disproportionately OTT.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Feb 18, 2014, 11:09 AM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT indeed. Seems personal.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Thread was started to provoke and that is what happened...
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

four of the hides have absolutely no explanation. one assumed it was personal, for god knows what reason. nowhere did i see anyone conclude i was rude. i could easily say, it was merely hidden cause my name was on the post. kinda like this juror.

On Mon Feb 10, 2014, 07:37 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

another call out behind my back, with polly that LOVES to insult me?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4474403

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Callout of a DUer who was not even involved in the thread to this point.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 10, 2014, 07:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It was a call-out...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If this post gets hidden, Sea goes on another break and the patriarchy wins again.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm sure the alerter noticed the callout of seabeyond in post number 54 by BellaKos and alerted it as well? No, actually, I'm not. Bella dragged seabeyond into a debate in reply to polly7 and polly7 wrongfully targets seabeyond as the offender. Perhaps we can just hide all 3 posters' post in this thread; just like kindergarten when the teacher holds the entire class accountable for the actions of a few? Hide 'em all or hide none. For this instance, leave it.

If this post gets hidden, Sea goes on another break and the patriarchy wins again.

if i am having people vote to hide a post, simply to have me kicked off the board, and reading skinners replies in ATA, i concluded, that with each and every one of my posts, i am certainly rolling the dice.

i do not think that is really what du is about.

this ties into a lot said and not said in ATA. but, we all know people let skinner direct how we as a whole move forward. and i think it is clear, after more than one Op skinner has addressed my hides in ATA, the bar is very very low to hide anything i post.

i read a thread earlier about how our jury pool is lessened for many reasons. i would also like to be clear, with a number of alerts, eventually there are going to be the four that will hide, with no reason. it does not take a brainiac in math to figure that out.