Results of Driftwoods banning......revisted.(POLL)

and the "left" were pros at that.

Let's see there is less bashing and pettiness. More NV members are willing to debate now without fear of vicious attacks and name-calling. The "Right" still have their fun and so do the "Left" and I see more respect for this. I think Driftwood did a great service to NV by getting banned and taking her buddies with her. She wasn't the fist to go and in fact she was quite a ways behind the first exodus of people. I saw her on "Newsvine Sucks" and other's on "Newstalkers" and "After the Vine". Since these ex-members hate Newsvine so deeply I believe they made the right choice.

I posted an article a couple of months ago in regards to Driftwoods banning.....well someone recently brought up some insights as to the results of that banning...and I had some thoughts on it.

Their thought was that newsvine is much more civil now than ever before...that with driftwood gone.......all the vile talk...well most of it has disappeared along with her existence on newsvine....save for a couple of reregs.

That is a complete mischaracterization of what I said, so much that it's basically one giant lie. For those who don't know, here is what I actually said:

Coming back to this a few months later, I must say, Newsvine has improved somewhat since DW and BH were banned. Less vitriol on some of my stories and seeds, more engagement. More debate and discussion. More people Getting Smarter Here.

It's not a stand out difference, but big enough that I notice it.

We went from "Newsvine has improved somewhat" in reality, to "Newsvine is much more civil now than ever before" in James' fantasy. The hell it is. Newsvine today isn't anything close to how it was in 2006, when I joined. That was a civil website and a bright and engaging community. It's also a memory that borders on myth, as old as it is.

Then we went from "It's not a stand out difference, but big enough that I notice it" in reality, to "most of it has disappeared".

How the hell do you go from what I said to this weird fantasy? James, this has to be one of the most dishonest things I've ever seen written on Newsvine, and that's pretty impressive given the amount of crap that gets posted here these days.

Make whatever argument you want, but quit putting words in my mouth to make your point.

Driftwoods presence on NV was not about participatory journalism.

It was about her ego and narcissistic need to be the center of attention.

A majority of the stuff she seeded was nonfactual crap and opinion which she made little effort to support.

Good riddance to ...

Paid trolls coming to NewsVine solely to interrupt and obfuscate the conversation should be banned.

Mis/Dis-communication is not helpful. Lies and made up facts are not helpful. These are tactics of Murdoch extremists.

If you look at the front page it reads like some left wing handbook.....goodness.....I was waiting today....I have been on and off for 8 hours today and have not seen one "right" winger make it to the front page.

Next thing is that you're going to tell me the Media has a Liberal Bias. ಠ_ಠ

I agree in a way though! I don't see too many articles from our Conservative counterparts these days. Well, not popular one's anyway. GrimCreeper still seeds stuff (and they get popular), and Patriot 8888 does, but keep in mind, just because popular articles come from one side or the other, does not mean there is a bias here on the vine.

A few members on my friends list seed hard left-wing articles all the time, but they're hardly popular. Are they good articles? Sure! But it does not attract a lot of attention. I begin to wonder if you're simply throwing a pity party and inviting everyone. O.o

The things that make into the front page are hot-blooded wedge issues. Things that are not biased in any way, such as gun control, abortion, tax policy, governing philosophy, et cetera.

Driftwood was a self-centered troll of the worst kind, please don't sing a dirge for someone is not mourned.

Meh, NV is populated by a majority of left-wingers. That is common knowledge. It then follows that the majority of articles, seeds, and votes will go to left-wingers, thus the plethora of "articles" and seeds dominating the front page. Even when I joined in '09, this site was already heavily left-leaning. Yes, those on the right appear to get stiffer treatment than those on the left, but since left-wingers hold a supremacy of NV, that is hardly surprising. Imagine we'd see the inverse on right-leaning sites, but they don't interest me as much. I really enjoy debate with those with whom I disagree, so I come here.

UNA:

I have heard of that disparate treatment, but, frankly, have never witnessed it, not really. Hell, I have been, at times, over the line (that was NOT an admission!) but have not been suspended or banned (watch it happen today!). And no one would take me for a lefty.

Got to say, those things that I have seen folks get suspended for are, generally, deserved. The only issue, I guess, is that if lefties don't get the same sentences.

Even then, the moderators can't be everywhere on the site at all times!

Know what, I pretty much wasn't here for 2 years, really didn't miss it all that much. Did miss some friends, but they are in the Fugee group and I would just stop by the group and say hi! I've been a bit more engaged lately, but frankly that is because I got more engaged at newstalkers.com, so I have just gotten more engaged in blogs.

I too enjoy debate, and even rough and tumble debate.

Could it be the sentence for some isn't so tough as they don't have a long track record for offenses? If you read Sir Richard's lists you will notice Sally and Tyler admonishing some viners for continuous offenses and they've gotten cut a lot of slack. So perhaps some back off and watch their behavior and others go whole hog and take their chances. Thinking that some are not treated fairly is a bit of a stretch. If I hadn't tracked month after month clicked on the comments page where the offender was called out then perhaps I might buy into NV being lopsided. I do think Newsvine is more leaning toward civil debate so this may be an aspect of some thinking unfairness is involved.

One of the individuals on my ignore list (and I don't have many) is an extreme left-wing poster who consistently violates the CoH, often skating along it (deleting comments from his seeds/articles that in no way violate the CoH and are on topic, while launching personal attacks). By any reasonable standard, that particular poster should have been banned several times over, but the worst he received was a suspension or two. Compare that to the enormous ban-hammer that fell upon sscott for a relatively trivial offense. That is but one example I can cite, and there are plenty of others.

Human nature is subjective, whether we want to admit it or not. We are not droids. We gravitate toward and sympathize with those who share our points of view, so such examples as the one I detailed are not surprising.

Without that person's name it's not really 'detailed' at all. Just a vague anecdote about some supposed left wing poster which may or may not be factual (or indeed actually exist).

When challenged to support the contention of bias toward the left by the site moderators this is exactly the kind of stuff that is offered as proof. I have yet to see a concrete proof of this claim though I see the claim made every day.

JS:

Well, I would say that the poster/seeder of this article does have a point, those of one political persuasion may well sense that there is more "civil" debate going on when all that is really happening is an echo chamber has been created.

I don't know, just a point to consider. I too look at the front page and immediately notice it is all left oriented. Want to get on the front page? Write/seed an article critical of Bachman or Palin, or whatever hot button is going on at that time.

But, as someone else pointed out, this site is owned by MSNBC!

I remember when this site was purchased by MSNBC. They began to link their stories. I would NEVER go on them, they were sewers! In fact, no rational Viner left or right would go on them!

I'm sure that lots of those posters have remained here.

Compare that to the enormous ban-hammer that fell upon sscott for a relatively trivial offense.

Yes, but "a relatively trivial offense" can still be the straw that breaks the camel's back if there are prior issues. Let's not pretend the only offense he ever committed was the relatively "trivial" one.

wmolaw I avoid commenting on the msnbc news links like the plague. There is a rough bunch that shows up there and unfortunately Sally and Tyler are continually called upon to intervene. I think msn is the worst at trying to attract posters to their articles. Sometimes it seems they are actually trying to squeeze Newvine out of the mix.

Wheel

When challenged to support the contention of bias toward the left by the site moderators this is exactly the kind of stuff that is offered as proof. I have yet to see a concrete proof of this claim though I see the claim made every day.

When Driftwood was suspended she rereged twice as a Lib and posted as a Lib. She also rereged as a conservative. When she was found to have broken the NV rules by reregging only her conservitive posts were closed the lib posts she made were still open. BIAS? You tell me.

Rio, since she was shown to have made ALL the posts it would seem to prove, at most, lack of thoroughness. It is certainly NOT proof of a sustained liberal bias by moderation. Think about it for a minute, the comments of a known right wing nut flying a false flag were left up. Not the same thing as bias toward actual left leaning posters.

Like I said, no concrete proof of bias toward the left exists except in the minds of some people on the right.

Consider yourself told.

When Driftwood was suspended she rereged twice as a Lib and posted as a Lib. She also rereged as a conservative. When she was found to have broken the NV rules by reregging only her conservitive posts were closed the lib posts she made were still open. BIAS? You tell me.

Do you mean her conservative accounts were closed, but not the lib ones? She had one account (lib) that was open for a few months. It may have been old enough to stay up, while all the newer reregs were deleted.

Can you point out which accounts were the "lib" ones that stayed open (other than the one that was several months old)?

You do realize that Driftwoods page and articles are still up? When someone re-registers time and time again how easy do you think it is for Sally and Tyler? Those that re-register obviously are flipping off the Newsvine administrators and nothing more. That is not very respectful in my opinion. Driftwood needed to take that "vacation" she said she was taking and not come sneaking in the back door. It is unfortunate when someone gets themselves banned but it happens and if it happens own up and move on.

Where is the "more biased than ever" option?

Without that person's name it's not really 'detailed' at all. Just a vague anecdote about some supposed left wing poster which may or may not be factual (or indeed actually exist).

Sorry, but posting the poster's identity would in and of itself be a violation of the CoH, since he is still an active poster on NV. If you wish to charge me with lying outright, please do so. You will be one of the few in my life and long and distinguished military career bestowing upon me such a gross dishonor (upon sites such as these or otherwise), but such is your privilege. Otherwise, you'll have to take what I wrote at face-value.

If I was going to charge you with lying, I would. I'm not bashful. I understand your position and my point is if you can't back it up you shouldn't have brought it up. You're correct, mentioning the name of a Viner not already in a discussion is a CoH violation. So, if you can't provide more than vague statements about your ignore list you shouldn't have brought it up since it's inevitable that it will be challenged.

I am saying that vague anecdotal statements are just that. And they are the ONLY kind of thing that is EVER offered as evidence of bias toward the left when the person making the claim is directly challenged. EVERY TIME. Every time, without exception.

I was going off my thoughts on this....you had said that newsvine had improved since she had left.

james-1416766,

Yeah, I said it had improved since Driftwood and Braveheart50 were banned.

Somewhat.

On my content.

That is not the same thing as Newsvine being "much more civil now than ever before".

You went so far beyond what I said that you pulled 90% of it out of thin air. You didn't mention that my statement included the banning of Braveheart50, who had been dragging this site into the gutter long before Driftwood1 showed up. You didn't mention that I qualified my statements by limiting my observations to my own column. You didn't mention that I said things had improved somewhat, which isn't very much, but is more than not at all.

I don't know, maybe you didn't think I'd see this, and you thought you could just reinvent the world the way you want it to be so that you can attack it. Or maybe you just don't care that it upsets people when you make stuff up about them.

Well I care. Stop writing fiction that involves me while pretending it's reality.

I'm flagging your story as inaccurate. It is unacceptable to have my statements so completely and brazenly distorted like this.

Wheel -

You never responded as to whether or not your statement to me about either (A) finding 'a few dozen posts' from all of Newsvine that match the quantity of rhetoric or (B) posts from a single, banned liberal poster that were made up largely of vitriol was a challenge from you or just empty rhetoric.

Is it a challenge?

I am saying that vague anecdotal statements are just that. And they are the ONLY kind of thing that is EVER offered as evidence of bias toward the left when the person making the claim is directly challenged. EVERY TIME. Every time, without exception.

That is probably because once someone is banned, they are fair game, while those who are not banned are not. In effect, repeat offenders can hide safely behind the CoH. If you are curious about the poster in question, feel free to browse my profile. I keep a handy list of banned posters, along with reasons I've placed them on my rather short list.

Pat

I said:

Can you pull dozens of seeds BY ONE PERSON that equal in quantity or lack of quality the garbage seeded by Driftwood? The answer is, of course, a resounding NO. In fact, I highly doubt you could pull that many seeds from all the 'left' on the Vine added together.

But, if you want to get into a real pissing contest then you've certainly come to the right place.

Lion, I'm looking at your profile but not seeing this list.

Lion, I'm looking at your profile but not seeing this list.

Link. Unfortunately, I cannot post the deleted comments, because they were deleted by the poster in question.

Oh, and pat, it wasn't 'a few dozen' it was dozens, week after week after weary week. In that one area driftwood really was sui generis.

Ok Lion, I'm seeing it now, under 'Read More'.

I think I can tell who you're talking about. I suspect if that person, a prolific, respected long time writer and seeder, deleted your comment then there was good reason. Did you appeal the deletion as is your right? Did he give a reason for the deletion in his column? Not asking if you agreed with the reason, that's a separate discussion.

UNA Lion,

Keep in mind that this isn't exactly FoxNation, so you won't find a lot of Right Wing support here, but it isn't devoid of it either. This is an MSNBC-sponsored site, after all, so it is not a huge surprise to me that this is somewhat of a more Progressive-oriented message board.

Basically, I'm asking this: why you mad?

Paid trolls coming to NewsVine solely to interrupt and obfuscate the conversation should be banned.

Whoa-- wait a second! Whatever your opinion of Driftwood-- do you honestly believe she was actually paid to participate on NV?

Krish:

Aren't we all? LOL.

She wasn't the fist to go and in fact she was quite a ways behind the first exodus of people

I'm not sure that's accurate?

Does anyone remember-- was "The Collective" formed after Driftwood's banning-- I had thought that happened before her banning--but I would be wrong.

And again-- I don't remember-- but was the exodus of some "Viners to "The Collective" website actually the first "exodus of people"? Or were there some before that?

Krish: Aren't we all? LOL.

Golly gee, wmolaw-- I must be doing something wrong! :-(

Dang krishna I don't want to bring up names of those that left before Driftwood but my friend list got a bit smaller with the departing. It began with the banning (more than one account) on a very popular NV member and her buddies went with her to one of the new sites. There was a big hullabaloo there and adjustments were made and some moved over to the Facebook site and started the same shenanigans and got booted from that site. I believe some that were outraged and left finally settled down and adjusted to their new forum. I have enough ex-viner Facebook friends to see their friends and ones that once were here and now are gone. I hope you don't mind that this is a bit vague but I cannot bare to name names as it may not go over well. I wish them all the best and have no issue with them but feel being discreet is the best way to show respect. If you check SRO's banning/suspension lists and meta group articles toward the end of last year you'll most likely find the ones I'm talking about.

Keep in mind that this isn't exactly FoxNation, so you won't find a lot of Right Wing support here, but it isn't devoid of it either. This is an MSNBC-sponsored site, after all, so it is not a huge surprise to me that this is somewhat of a more Progressive-oriented message board.

Have never been to FoxNation, so have no idea how they operate. I did appeal the deletions and got no response from the admins. As to your statement, that was the point I made earlier. NV is a very Progressive site, so leniency granted to popular Progressive posters hardly surprising. I expect the bias. If it bothered me over-much, I'd cease posting here, vice placing offending posters on ignore. Actually have quite a few Progressive friends on this site who can and do engage in very thought-provoking discourse, all without engaging in popular logical fallacies or skating on the edge of the CoH.

Aren't we all? LOL.

I'm proud to say I'm a 'paid poster'. Yeppers...Newsvine pays me roughly 2.5 cents per month. When they remember, that is.

I can beat that, I made 1 cent in April, that's right, 1 whole penny. I'm in it for money. :)

I agree in a way though! I don't see too many articles from our Conservative counterparts these days

These days?

Anyone remember Bodhi1-- and why he left?

You're a (GASP!!!) paid poster too, wheel?! lol.

I haven't checked April. Too afraid too. I figure after about 10 years or so, I'll check it and be pleasantly surprised when I can buy a package of Wrigley's gum.

just because popular articles come from one side or the other, does not mean there is a bias here on the vine.

OK-- I'll bite. If you feel it doesn't mean that there's any bias-- what, exactly, do you think does account for it?

Dang krishna I don't want to bring up names of those that left before Driftwood but my friend list got a bit smaller with the departing. It began with the banning (more than one account) on a very popular NV member and her buddies went with her to one of the new sites. There was a big hullabaloo there and adjustments were made and some moved over to the Facebook site and started the same shenanigans and got booted from that site. I believe some that were outraged and left finally settled down and adjusted to their new forum. I have enough ex-viner Facebook friends to see their friends and ones that once were here and now are gone.

So what?

That's what happens on Internet sites-- especially large site like NV. People come-- and people go. (Of course not all of the women in the room are necessarily talking of Michelangelo 8-).

People get banned, people leave voluntarily. Or not. Some go to other sites. Some don't. Some participate on multiple sites. Some get disgusted with the Internet and quit discussion sites entirely. New people show up....

Some gossip about other people-- on their new site, or on their old site. Or both. Some do neither.

Newsvine...Newstalkers...etc, etc., etc. Are these sites about discussing actual news-- or are they about gossiping about other users?

Of course the answer to that question depends upon what users decide to do (and what the site administrators permit).

What should these sites be like? Well, of course, that too is a matter of opinion.

If a person really, really doesn't like a site-- they are free to find another one...

Hopefully everyone will eventually find a site that meets their needs (or "wants") & will make them happy :-)

You're a (GASP!!!) paid poster too, wheel?! lol.

I haven't checked April. Too afraid too. I figure after about 10 years or so, I'll check it and be pleasantly surprised when I can buy a package of Wrigley's gum.

I'm going for the big deal, a Whopper and large fries. I figure I've got about 10-12 years to go. :)

Of course the answer to that question depends upon what users decide to do (and what the site administrators permit).

You tell us: I saw your name on one of them.

What Krishna said. I concur.

As far as pay, i once made $30 on a slow writing month. i then made something like $15 the next month with an almost 140% increase in page views. I think now i am down to $.01 a month. At this rate, i will be able to retire sooner than i had hoped!

There are indeed right wing posters that push the limits on a regular basis, and are not suspended. They tend to gather on the MSNBC articles where moderation is thin, and on certain articles that contain the usual hot button issues, in particular immigration.

If Newsvine seems to have a liberal bias to some, remember the famous words of Steven Colbert:

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

At this rate, i will be able to retire sooner than i had hoped!

I'm thinking you might be able to start a Harvard college Fund, Peter.

Yep. Just a few more months...

Casey was found not guilty really and there is nothing you can do about it.

Driftwood was banned really then again there is nothing you can do about it.

Yours,

Simple.

Hi Peter! Good to see you back here!

Yet you are still here Kshark. Amazing.

Hey felicity! I appreciate it. Great to see you as well. :)

Just goes to show how scared they really were of countering voices.

Yeah, they banned a re-reg because she was a "countering voice". lol

Good one VerbalBarb. lol indeed!

js-445607--

And note how often, barely at all I even bother posting anymore.

But then again I also am not for any party anyway, I just prefer taking the good with the bad and not making it all a happy liberal pat the back fest just as I would not want a happy conservative pat the back fest either.

-----------------------------------------------

VerbalBarb--

And yet she was suspended first because she was a countering voice and was actually being attacked in her own seed. She pleaded with moderators to do something, they failed in their jobs. She was being personally attacked. She would be attacked for anything.

See you guys are scared of countering voices. Says very little about all of you.

See you all just couldn't leave her well enough alone. Who cares what she posted, but no no because she was a conservative voice that was against the unspoken rules of this site and you all worked very hard to get her banned.

Bravo. Gotta love the intolerance. LOL.

Driftwood was the biggest dissenting voice on this site.

SO many on the left on this site ave indeed violated the COH and were NOT called on it. So many times the moderators have been extremely biased in the punishments, and I have indeed called them out on it.

So well now Newsvine is the liberal jerkoff site it wanted to be where it is all liberal/left voices all day all night.

NV has merely turned into a biased/pathetic/site not even worthy of being called newsvine. It is LiberalVine or should I also say IntolerantVine, maybe even SocialistVine as gosh forbid any dissenting voices should be heard.

Just goes to show how scared they really were of countering voices.

Interesting comment, Kshark. And I can see how you feel that way.

Earlier in this conversation I mentioned Eric Albert as an example of a leftist who was banned.

The reason I bring that up is simply this: if, in your comment we were to change "Driftwood" to "Eric Albert"-- and interchange the terms "left" and "right"-- then what you wrote would be typical of the many comments protesting the banning of EA! (If anyone here is familiar with that particular kerfuffle-- try it-- change those words in Kshark.'s statement in the way I mentioned)

In other words-- EA's supporters claimed that:

-He was the biggest dissenting voice, and therefore his comments were uniquely valuable and therefore he shouldn't be banned

-that the staff is unfair (Politically biased)

-that EA was banned for his political views and not for his behaviour.

IMO, all 3 of those statements are untrue!

And yet she was suspended first because she was a countering voice and was actually being attacked in her own seed

She was suspended a full day after the 'attacking' person was banned.

She pleaded with moderators to do something, they failed in their jobs.

They banned the attacker.

After that, as the seeder, she could warn and delete anybody else who got off topic or COH violation. She didn't - she let it go on, and took part in the post-first-banning cluster.

When she got suspended, she accepted it, saying she'd be back in a week. She didn't balk against it, argue about it, she seemingly took it with some dignity, acknowledging what she did wrong. She specifically said something along the lines of "I'll do better."

The martyr routine is tired.

There have been accusations of politically biased moderation here since I joined (and probably long before that). Actually, I was quite curious-- so I observed carefully for a while. And, perhaps a bit to my surprise-- I concluded that the staff's moderation is actually not politically biased-- either way!

(Although, interestingly, there are usually several people-- on both the left and the right-- who feel that moderation is biased against their political viewpoint...

In any banning (of a Viner with strong political views-- anywhere on the left-right spectrum) it seems there will always be people who feel that he/she was banned not for their inappropriate behaviour-- but rather because of their views.

Both EA and "Driftie" presented dissenting views-- and both were further form the political center than most liberals or conservatives. And if that was their only distinguishing characteristic-- there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that both would still be here.

But the problem with both was not what they said-- but the way they said it. Both were extremely provocative and inflammatory...and that's why they were banned.

Who cares what she posted, but no no because she was a conservative voice that was against the unspoken rules of this site and you all worked very hard to get her banned.

As much as I disliked the crap she put up, I don't recall ever reporting her for anything; mostly, because I shied away from participating in any of her (as someone put it) "hate and bait" contributions to NV. So, please, spare us the "you all" mantra.

And, for the record, no one got her banned but herself. Sorry, it still smarts, but if you want to blame someone, blame the person who re-regged.

Whoa-- wait a second! Whatever your opinion of Driftwood-- do you honestly believe she was actually paid to participate on NV?

Krish:

Aren't we all? LOL.

Well, frankly I'm starting to get a little pissed off. My check from AIPAC has been late for two weeks in a row now...when are they gojng to get their act together and finally pay up?

VerbalBarb

As much as I disliked the crap she put up, I don't recall ever reporting her for anything; mostly, because I shied away from participating in any of her (as someone put it) "hate and bait" contributions to NV. So, please, spare us the "you all" mantra.

And, for the record, no one got her banned but herself. Sorry, it still smarts, but if you want to blame someone, blame the person who re-regged.

I never voted to collapse her articles and never reported her and also stayed away from her page. The day she was banned I did drop in and she began deleting all of us that didn't write what she wanted to hear and the administrators got a heads up and suspended her for two weeks. She did that to herself. Then after posting something about being on vacation by her avatar she re-registered got caught and banned. So it wasn't the lefty, liberal, commie, conspirator that Newsvine favors over all others that got her in trouble. She did that all by herself.

Then after posting something about being on vacation by her avatar she re-registered got caught and banned.

Actually, people try to make it sound like she got upset about being suspended again and went and re-regged; but she'd actually had the second account set up for several months before she got caught.

Lauren10 was created on Monday, 31 Jan 2010. The account was dormant after creation until the flurry of activity on the day it was banned 2011/05/12.

Thanks buddies for setting me straight on that one. I do remember that she did have that account ready to roll. Well heck that makes her look even more lame than before. Silly people do silly stuff I guess and it is too bad but sometimes they get caught and feel obligated to squeal like a pig that it isn't fair grab all their homies to protest and stir up a pot of slop.

Thanks, SRO - I couldn't remember that other name.

Heh... I got the creation date wrong. I meant 2011 instead of 2010.

I knew that and overlooked your wee blooper. No problem.

Simply driftwood wasn't banned becuz of her opinion but becuz of the violation.

And yet she was suspended first because she was a countering voice and was actually being attacked in her own seed. She pleaded with moderators to do something, they failed in their jobs. She was being personally attacked. She would be attacked for anything.

Kshark,

The facts of this have already been established in other places. Driftwood1 was suspended for not moderating her own column. When she was attacked by one person, she should have deleted his comments and reported the incident if it escalated. Instead, she sat there and argued with him. Moreover she allowed other people on the column to go off-topic to take sides without censuring any of them.

Column owners have the ability to delete comments in order to maintain order and keep discussions productive. Along with that authority comes the responsibility to do so. Not doing so is a clear violation of the Code of Honor, one that people have historically been held to account for. DW was not the first, and she wasn't the last. The community moderators should only have to step in if situations get out of control, and that's what happened there, precisely because DW wasn't controlling it.

And then she was banned when it was discovered that she had been running multiple accounts for months prior. Meaning it ultimately didn't matter what happened before. She was on borrowed time.

End of story.

Simply driftwood wasn't banned becuz of her opinion but becuz of the violation.

Yup-- same with Eric Albert!

I am wondering....if the account of lauren was created in conjunction with a previous suspension???

No. It was in between.

suspended week 2010/12/30

ignore TheJonesGirl 2011/01/11

ignore Jeff in Houston 2011/01/25

Lauren10 was created on Monday, 31 Jan 2011

suspended for a week 2011/03/24

.just curious as to why it was created in the first place...then layed dormant for 5 months.

It was a parachute.

whether you agree with it or not....I understand how she felt "ganged" up on.

Paranoia is a symptom of Combat Fatigue. Seeding 1100+ articles in six weeks would simulate combat.

as we come here to fight and not to agree with everyone...

Show me the "Get Smarter Here" in that attitude.

so those who are not left wing.....have the deck stacked against them...

I have a theory: Most left-wingers arrive at Newsvine via MSNBC. Their #'s get culled while there, and only the smarter ones make it to Newsvine. I don't know how right-wingers get here, but they don't go through the same process until they get here.

tyler and sally are obviously left wing in their political persuasion...

Doesn't matter what their persuasion is, they go by the book. Nobody gets banned over their ideology. They get banned because they can't abide by the rules.

dont know where I am going with this.....

Tilting at windmills

combat fatigue......lmao

Laugh all you want, it just shows that you've never experienced it, never been around it, and never been trained to look for it. Someone doesn't have to be in physical combat to suffer from CSR.

I got here through msnbc.....does that make me smarter than the average bear??

It only means you made it past the cull. Two of your four suspensions were on MSNBC articles. You might have avoided the last one if you hadn't refused to accept a peer request to stay on topic.

and that is my opinion and I am sticking with it.

It's too bad you're serious about that.

I find that some people simply do not think they are ever in the wrong and so that must mean that there is someone out there to get them. No matter how many times they are warned it is never their fault. So by this any time a reprimand is issued they've been robbed. Driftwood set someone up by poking them over and over again and then screamed when she couldn't win. She involved other Newsvine members and ended their time on the vine yet none of this was her fault in her mind and the mind of her loyal followers. Funny thing though when she did her Lauren persona she crapped on a lot of her friends by being a "Lefty" and collapsed or deleted them. What kind of friend is this?

One thing I have noticed is that I have not had any articles or seeds collapsed recently. Coincidence?

maybe most of the right wing is on vacation because they have jobs???

What? They didn;t have jobs 2 months ago?

I find that some people simply do not think they are ever in the wrong and so that must mean that there is someone out there to get them.

Excellent observation! And I think thta explains a lot of the fights here, and many of the longstanding vendettas!!!

No matter how many times they are warned it is never their fault.

Yes.

In fact, in the case of the bannings previously discussed here, (Driftie and Eric Albert), many of their friends and admirers INSISTED that they were banned soley because of their political views, and not because of their constant inflammatory rants.

Of course that is totally false-- but to this day, many 'Viners still believe that nonsense!!!

Regarding bias, it's as simple as -- it's usually not WHAT you're saying..... it's HOW you're saying it.

Those who claim bias will nearly always fall under this disconnect. By that, when I read

"Johnny does it and he doesn't get suspended/deleted, but when I do it ...."

"you just don't want to hear the truth"

it never fails to be about attacking a person, not a problem or issue. In general, conservative thinking itself attacks people not problems, so they believe everyone is doing it, so they perceive bias and being picked on, unable to distinguish the difference.

Some parents and teachers modify this in our youth. Parents often teach to say the same thing only without insults, "say it nicely", in order to get along better in the world. They still ask for the day off to their employer -- or for the mortgage from their banker -- or for a date with the pretty girl -- or request the neighbor not mow their lawn at 4am -- they just ask politely.

As they get older and practice this in relation to ideas (such as what happens in university classes when writing papers especially), how they say it doesn't stifle their speech -- in fact, it gets one on the other side of that barrier that some think is bias.

Teaching children to take responsibility for their mistakes and actions to practice being polite and diplomatic are essentials as it protect them and allows them more freedom of expression. I think it is a character flaw when a person cannot figure this out and continually violates others with their words and actions. It is obvious that "observation" properties are missing along with the capability to listen and learn from others.

#1.84 ,

conservative thinking itself attacks people not problems

You want to back that up with some examples ?

I find that some people simply do not think they are ever in the wrong and so that must mean that there is someone out there to get them.

js-445607 ,

If you dig deeper, you'll also find that those people don't care for the rules to begin with. They don't understand why they shouldn't be able to call someone a moron, or an @!$%#. In fact I think that's what leads to the I'm never wrong problem. They don't value civility and usually think that debate is for geeks and people without real lives, while they sit back getting a laugh out of being a bully or a dick.

As column owners who actively seed and sometimes write original content, they end up valuing the COH as a thing to be used against other people as a weapon, because that's what they see it as when it's applied to themselves.

What you end up with is someone like, say, a Sscott, who would inappropriately delete comments on his column that didn't violate the COH, only to get suspended himself a day later for violating the COH in three or four different places, all while honestly not understanding what he did wrong. When you don't share the values the COH is meant to embody (civility, substantive discussion, critical thinking, challenging perceptions), you're never going to see it as being used fairly.

And do you know what the real bitch of that is? It's not something that can be fixed. That kind of thing has to be taught to a person as a child. If you don't appreciate the benefits of debate or value civil discussion as a child or young adult, you never will.

* * *

it never fails to be about attacking a person, not a problem or issue. In general, conservative thinking itself attacks people not problems, so they believe everyone is doing it, so they perceive bias and being picked on, unable to distinguish the difference.

storyartist,

I'm sure this will sound hypocritical because of what you said and therefore where I'm going with it, but I think that can largely be explained if you imagine adult conservatives as children. That has nothing to do with intelligence mind you, I'm talking about pre-adolesecent maturity. The tendency to focus on the who, not the what. The inability to control emotions, leading to unacceptable outbursts of anger. A preference for superficial entertainment over substance. Obsession with sex in the form of scandals. No concept of the value of responsibility and therefore the inability to accept responsibility for literally anything. Always seeing losing as the end of the world no matter the context. A persistent persecution complex. Will say all the hateful things in the world to someone else without a second thought only to go into an apocalyptic rage or depression when those very same things are said back to them.

Now, understand that not every conservative in the world is like that. Anyone can grow up to be a forty year old child and many people do regardless of political ideology.

I think perhaps the conservative political ideology (and politics generally) can be very accepting and alluring to immature people. As a party, the worse one behaves, the more popular they can become in the GOP. The unwillingness to compromise at all in politics is little different than a child refusing to compromise on sharing toys. The more absolute you are, the bigger star you become in the party.

On a related note, I think this is the reason that the media is so biased against liberals. It's understood, probably unconsciously, that liberals are the adults of politics and conservatives are the children. As adults, Democrats are expected to do the right thing. When they don't, it's shocking and a big deal, and so worthy of obsessive coverage. When Republicans do something wrong, it's expected and not out of the ordinary, and therefore ignored. That's why you have David Vitter – a patron of prostitutes – still serving in the Senate with many high ranking Republicans donating to his campaign and supporting him with the press ignoring everything he ever did, while Anthony Weiner who did nothing illegal, was savaged by the press for weeks and his own party leaders demanded he resign and he was forced out.

Anyway, it's just something to think about. A day doesn't go by that I don't see the same behavior amongst conservatives on Newsvine and Republicans in Congress mirrored in one of my little nephews. I'm sure they'll grow up eventually, but many conservatives never do.

Paul William Tenny great points. My daughter and I were discussing this aspect of personalities today. She has a nearly 21 year old drama queen and I have her 28 year old sister also a drama queen. Both are highly intelligent work beautifully with others and are very popular. When anything goes awry they are taken aback that someone would have the audacity to be mean to them. We work diligently to encourage them to see the situation as it is not as they see it which is taking any type of abuse is unwise and taking it personally is futile. They are working on mastering this advice thank goodness.

Immaturity can last a lifetime. There are some that stay in that authoritative world where they must be above others and always right. Some of them are managers at Burger King and like places.

PWT #1.87----Absolutely. All of it. You're able to write what I see much better than I can in a way more easily understood. And I don't find your points hypocritical. In fact, I'll expand that a notch. I learned about the *stunted growth* you're referring to by processing my own past from an alcoholic family background. Remove the alcohol, and what's glaring is where maturity got stuck. The key to unlocking, releasing the confusion, then re-parenting yourself as an adult (just like in exposing corruption you follow the money), in exposing stunted growth in family systems you follow the language.

And do you know what the real bitch of that is? It's not something that can be fixed. That kind of thing has to be taught to a person as a child. If you don't appreciate the benefits of debate or value civil discussion as a child or young adult, you never will.

Your point was aptly placed. Yes, no amount of point-by-point debate will do anything but spin around and around. You'll see me comment on NV that I don't argue with a drunk at closing time who has one hand on a bottle of beer and the other on a barstool. That's my way of putting a visual on the language that is taking place in a way that usually doesn't trigger a practiced *script* for a response.

However, I disagree with you that if you don't learn this as a child, you never will. Some say you never will without dedicated therapy, and that's the easiest way (not easy by any means, but more structured and thorough than *doing it on your own*). But in my life's journey, yes I was introduced to this via alcoholic family systems, but because of my interest I met hundreds of people from other backgrounds doing the same kind of interpersonal work. Since the timing for me was early 1990s, many of them were learning how to apply these principles to their corporate *families* dealing with downsizing and HR issues in a more mature or professional way. The *kicker* was always this -- you can't manage that in others until you've succumbed to the process yourself, and those are the ones I met. IMHO, yes, it's possible.

And what happens is the topic of this article. When the alcohol is removed from the mix -- when the alcohol no longer has a voice by speaking through the actors in the play -- when the rush from intoxication is no longer present to ignite the adrenaline *fire* -- the players are calmer, speak to each other in a more pleasant tone, however there is regret from those who seek to be sparked. That's the whining and "it's not fair" hangover language that will continue until the next Sarah Palin or Driftwood or other vitriol bartender comes along to pour another shot of verbal moonshine.

I think perhaps the conservative political ideology (and politics generally) can be very accepting and alluring to immature people.

They feel *at home* in the cadence of the language. It's *familiar*. (Etymology -- "Familiar originally meant simply ‘of the family’ -- http://www.word-origins.com/definition/familiar.html)

As adults, Democrats are expected to do the right thing. When they don't, it's shocking and a big deal, and so worthy of obsessive coverage. When Republicans do something wrong, it's expected and not out of the ordinary, and therefore ignored.

Households without adult role models perpetuate pre-adolescent relationships. The adults to them are the adolescents. (Children raising children, as Bradshaw was famous for saying.) Households without children to teach the adults perpetuate a kind of self-indulgence and sense of entitlement. We need the input from all of these aspects in order to have *family*. The adults -- the adolescents -- the children. We as a nation are a family with all those parts. We on Newsvine are a family with all of those parts.

One thing I have noticed is that I have not had any articles or seeds collapsed recently.

no, the left are still doing gang collapsing....just ask kjmgirl, or look on some libby seeds..nothing has changed in that regard. As for your seeds, Soph, I hardly ever go there for my own reasons. But I can tell you this, alot of conservative viners have just given up on NV - it IS biased and when one person can get a suspension for saying "snookums" and "hon" , and another one can death wish all conservatives, the GOP, and myself, and nothing is done, thoughreported by myself at least three times..I am pretty well through with it. I get on here some, but not nearly like in the past. Why put up with the abuse? The collapsing of posts, and seeds? Many of my friends feel the same, so enjoy your friggin echo chamber, as there is no semblance of balance anymore.

However, I disagree with you that if you don't learn this as a child, you never will.

storyartist ,,

I will too. With a good nights sleep, let me replace that with this:

Debate is the principle tool to persuade someone that they are wrong, or to believe that X is true. Even informal debate – nothing more than argument – is how we learn new things in lieu of being lectured. If someone doesn't value debate and actively shows even minimal hostility towards it, then the most basic and effective tool used to grow as a person has been lost. And there's nothing anyone on the outside can do to fix that. Someone would have to come to a sort of epiphany on their own, which is rare.

They feel *at home* in the cadence of the language. It's *familiar*. (Etymology -- "Familiar originally meant simply 'of the family' -- http://www.word-origins.com/definition/familiar.html)

If I were to expound on that, I'd say that conservatism is inherently an immature philosophy. One of stubbornness; resistance to change. Even fear of change. The political philosophy closely mirrors the faults of the immaturity in the person, and yes, they would find that comforting.

That has nothing to do with actual politics (meaning policies), mind you. I've always believed that your underlying philosophy determines your political leanings because they are so closely linked. A mature person would lean to the left precisely because liberalism is more open to compromise – a trait of maturity.

Meaning a person isn't anti-choice/anti-abortion because they are immature. Rather they are willing to intimately control other people's lives while viciously fighting any attempt to be controlled that way themselves because they are immature. The issue of abortion is utterly irrelevant, then. It's about the hypocrisy of control, which is decidedly a trait found most commonly in children. I can do whatever I want and you can't tell me otherwise (insert hissy fit when power is not realized) but don't you dare think of not doing what I want (insert hissy fit when power is not realized). And so on.

It's a slipper slope. Anne Coulter became an infamous @!$%# for writing books that argue that liberalism is a mental disease, and I could see how what I'm saying could been as a counterpart to what she said. It's not of course, but when you're dealing with inherently immature people, that doesn't really matter.

Does it.

* * *

no, the left are still doing gang collapsing....just ask kjmgirl,

vol fan in chatt, tn ,

I did. She supposedly had 2-3 stories in a row collapsed, then wrote an intentionally-COH violating story that then got collapsed, before she wrote a fourth story complaining about all of that (which stayed up). On that fourth and final story, I asked her to provide those stories so I could see if they were appropriately collapsed or not. I said if they weren't, I'd support her and complain. She didn't reply, of course, as best I remember it. Someone else did and I managed to dig the intentionally-COH violating story out of Google's cache. Again, best as I remember, I found no fewer than 5 COH violations. The title alone violated the Code of Honor at least twice (inflammatory to get attention, not supported by the story). It was spammed to many inappropriate groups, it death wished people, on and on.

I asked kjmgirl to provide a cache of the other stories, and she refused to even acknowledge my request. That's pretty common on Newsvine. Conservatives complain that they have stories and seeds being wrongly taken down by the community, but they'll never show them to anyone, knowing full well that they did violate the COH and are just whining because they didn't get away with it.

Given that the one story I was able to view myself had 5+ violations on it, it's highly likely that the stories taken down before it also had violations.

That's not gang collapsing by "the left" or anyone else. It's the community do its job by keeping garbage off the vine.

But I can tell you this, alot of conservative viners have just given up on NV

I love claims like this because they are so easy to disprove with so little effort.

"Democrat Watch" (a name that only Joseph McCarthy would love) looks like this in items added:

April: 410
May: 342
June: 352
July: 319 (projected)

"FOX NEWS" is a dumping ground for conservatives that don't understand the point of groups because they seed literally everything there:

April: 599
May: 602
June: 609
July: 647 (projected)

Here's "The Conservative Vine":

April: 576
May: 547
June: 632
July: 683 (projected)

Here's "rightwingers", which has 760 members:

April: 816
May: 771
June: 705
July: 740 (projected)

Mind you, Driftwood1 was banned in early-to-mid May, and she was adding about 240 seeds to Newsvine per month all by herself. Yet three of the big four actually had more content posted in June, and two of them are projected to grow again this month.

Sorry, but the conservative contingent on Newsvine is every bit as large and vibrant as it always has been.

it IS biased and when one person can get a suspension for saying "snookums" and "hon" , and another one can death wish all conservatives, the GOP, and myself,

You should talk to kjmgirl about that. One of her stories I was talking about that got taken down by the community was death-wishing conservatives.

Go figure.

Newsvine isn't biased, it's just about right. Just too many people around here with persecution complexes is all.

Newsvine is just about right Paul William Tenny. Certain types have a tendency to link outrageous articles that draw members that have very little in debating skills. The do however have a huge capacity to transfer blame onto others so when they break contracts or code of honor and it is never their fault. It is the same with those that know deeply in the hearts that they are being stalked, attacked and maligned as it gives them yet another excuse to blame others for their downfall.

Paul William Tenny

You have made some excellent points that are reasonable without attacking or degrading others. It would be nice if everyone could speak as coherently.

James

When you make statements like this..

and I will concede that the right wing on this site are a bit more confrontational...as we come here to fight and not to agree with everyone...

... it reminds me how differently all of us think and see the world and others. I didn't come here to fight. I'm here to express my opinions and debate that with others. Perspective. If you come to fight expect the unexpected. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.

"It's nature's way". Steve Irwin

I've read with interest the conversation here and though there are disagreements I haven't noticed any bloody noses. Or collaped comments. I've seen some complaining about how unfair things are mostly by those who feel picked on or outnumbered. Pretty much by those who express James' attitude that this is a fighting arena. It's not. This place has rules that we all agreed to.

SScott was one of the few monitors that deleted my comments and most were restored. It became a ridicules situation so I simply stopped commenting on his articles. I enjoyed debating with him but he was obviously struggling with opinions that opposed his own. I took a break for awhile and when I came back he was gone. I didn't do a little happy dance but knew that he must have stepped over the line somewhere. Same with a number of others. Am I happy to see them gone? Yes and no. Will I lose sleep because they are? No.

We aren't going to agree, we are individuals. This lefty v righty thing is worse than a high school rivalry. Drawing a line in the sand and saying everyone who disagrees MUST be part of the other side, or worse yet, the enemy, gets us nowhere.

Thanks to everyone on this thread for being civil. Thanks to James for getting the conversation going.

SayWhat

When you make statements like this..

and I will concede that the right wing on this site are a bit more confrontational...as we come here to fight and not to agree with everyone...

... it reminds me how differently all of us think and see the world and others. I didn't come here to fight. I'm here to express my opinions and debate that with others. Perspective. If you come to fight expect the unexpected. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.

I frequently find the "fighters" on seeds that are posted to highlight the lighter side of life. Do they catch on when they read the catchy comebacks and banter? Do they read more that the title? It doesn't not seem so. What they do is make snide and inappropriate remarks and do the condescending arrogant act and tell everyone how stupid they are or how they are morons. When they get smacked down by administrators they loudly sing the blues. So my advice is if you hit a seed with hundreds of comments and don't bother to read the article or the comments and get in trouble don't blame another for your mistake.

save for a couple of reregs.

She's still here. She never left in fact. She just lost a few of her accounts.

She's still here. She never left in fact. She just lost a few of her accounts.

What are some of the names she uses?

What are some of the names she uses?

I couldn't even begin to scratch the full list... but I'd bet my bottom dollar that Greenwood10 is one of the aliases she now uses...

If that's true-- the use of another name ending in ___wood isn't too smart!

Way Darrah! :)

For God's sake. Some people need to get a life.

It's sad. Because it just means none of them have had the balls to step up. What she did wasn't rocket science...

What Driftwood did was create a lot of negative energy, which we've all been guilty of at times in our lives. But she actually did me a favor without knowing it. After she got banned because of having the second account and using it to basically tell everybody to go @!$%# themselves, I realized that being in politics on NV wasn't worth it. Even though I created two liberal groups, I don't intend on ever seeding another political article again. I'll keep watch on them every day and continue to accept invitations, but that's about it.

Just for the record, I admired Driftwood's tenacity and energy. But I couldn't stand the way she wasted it on Fox and Red State lies. I hated to see some viners getting extremely nasty with her by calling her "Drifty" and worse. I got caught up in it too though, and that's not who I am. So I apologize for that. Driftwood could have done a lot of good here. I hope she drops politics for awhile and drops those losers who encourage her--Braveheart being one.

And just for one more record, I don't have a second account.

I hated to see some viners getting extremely nasty with her by calling her "Drifty" and worse.

As far as I know, I coined the "Drifty" moniker, so to be clear, I never intended it as a slight. "Driftwood" just seemed like an impersonal name, so I shortened it to be playful. It only became anything more than that when she gang-collapsed my comment due to it, and I e-mailed administration because that seemed kind of silly to me. Administration restored it and from then on I used it as a sign that she couldn't intimidate me into following her arbitrary rules.

She called me "Stevie" sometimes as a weird act of revenge. I told her I didn't care, but she seemed to get a kick out of the "payback," so whatever.

As for the "worse," yeah, some people got pretty nasty with her, and shame on them.

I don't remember who did and who didn't. I wasn't accusing anyone. She shouldn't have started the gang collapsing though. Nobody should be the head of that immature behavior. Driftwood sure had some sneaky rules. She enjoyed deleting comments from a lot of liberal women even if we were trying to be nice. Personally, I felt like she was being a little dumb by seeding those crappy sensational articles by Red State. And yeah, people can do it on both sides to a degree, but I'd never seen anything that came close on the liberal side. (Nobody has to go digging to find one.)

Driftwood wanted to be the voice of the Conservative / Tea Party movement on NV, IMO. She could have done it in a more mature way. She might have if it hadn't been for the little clique following her around.

Whenever I made a comment on one of Driftwood's seeds she'd be so disrespectful and confrontational I basically gave up. One time she deleted my post and every post that did not agree with her. The weird part of this is everyone of us were sticking to the code of honor and most of the rest were not. We didn't get into pissing matches with the ones calling us names or retaliate in any manner. This was her suspension seed. Her "up yours" attitude was pretty bad at times and although she was hugely popular I think many of us found her to be far too ludicrous to take seriously. I do not care one way or the other about her being banned but the manner in which she blamed Newsvine moderators and Newsvine Liberals for everything going wrong in her life didn't seem very mature. I do however wish her well.

. Because it just means none of them have had the balls to step up. What she did wasn't rocket science...

I saw someone put something up the other day that was reminiscent of the type of stuff DW used to put up. It didn't surprise me when I saw that the seeder said something like "thanks to my friend Danielle for this".

Maybe she's trying to help someone pick up her (forcefully) discarded mantle. ;0)

She accused me of being a troll, which I wasn't. I rarely read her articles even if they were on the front page. But when I saw that the title itself was an outright lie, I would sometimes check to see how people were responding. I couldn't help myself from responding sometimes. It was like a little trap she wanted to spring on people while getting all those votes in the process.

What I really hate is that she got Edison Ellis banned. He wrote in our little conversation box in our political group that we shouldn't even waste our time with her and her posse. But of course he went back. Braveheart kept at him. Talking about a pair working together. Braveheart should have been gone long before he was. He made me sick to my stomach. Hear that Braveheart? ;-)

So james it's difficult for you to mention Driftwood and then cherry pick the comments you wish to have on your seed. Life is much better without that posse of vampires bottom line. We can debate without name-calling personal attacks and whining about each and every slight that ever happened to this type. They never took responsibility for their mistakes or their wrongs and that is not the type of people that can successfully communicate because everyone is wrong but them. On the other hand their loyal followers that are still here on the vine keep them updated on who is talking about them and what is going on. I'm sure they are quite disappointed that they are not missed by the majority of us. Long live the respectful vine!

js, don't we have a virtual party to go to or something?

Let's move it Darrah! I need a drink!

But she actually did me a favor without knowing it. After she got banned because of having the second account and using it to basically tell everybody to go @!$%# themselves, I realized that being in politics on NV wasn't worth it.

I've left too, a long time ago actually, but I don't think it's really the right thing to do, or at the very least, disengaging, while not directly contributing to the problem, isn't helping anything. There needs to be some sort of "concerted" community effort to produce political/religious/hot-topic content that produce discussions and debates you would feel comfortable engaging in, driving the "bad" content down, instead of allowing it to slowly grow by ignoring it. As it is said, silence is approval.

Revolution!

this isnt really about her....but what has happened since she was banned.

How about what hasn't happened since she was banned. I haven't seen any posts consisting of the message:

"Psst you've just been reported."

Over something someone would post while debating someone on Driftwood's friends list for a trivial infraction while ignoring much worst from her friends. I have seen this a number of times and confronted her when she tried to pull it on me. I suggested bringing a moderator in on it which she replied "whatever" and disappeared and never bothered me again. So that is what I have noticed. Good riddance!!

I've left too, a long time ago actually, but I don't think it's really the right thing to do, or at the very least, disengaging, while not directly contributing to the problem, isn't helping anything. There needs to be some sort of "concerted" community effort to produce political/religious/hot-topic content that produce discussions and debates you would feel comfortable engaging in, driving the "bad" content down, instead of allowing it to slowly grow by ignoring it. As it is said, silence is approval.

Revolution!

I've found my little niche on NV. I've created two political groups where viners who share similar ideas and goals can seed or write. Of course it's not the only political group, so it's not like I gave a gift to NV or something. I drop by there daily and I still get requests and accept 99% of them. Just because I don't won't to seed any more political articles or discuss one, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be spirited debates on NV. But I haven't seen many Conservatives who are willing to debate in a mature way. Maybe that's because they feel outnumbered on NV. Who knows.

I've focused my energy and passion on topics that are serious news but in a much different way then politics and religion.

On thing I've noticed is that there are still some cruel people who follow others around. It's like a little kid who needs to stick out their tongue while no one is watching. Maybe they're doing it on behalf of a banned viner or just because they have nothing better to do.

I thought this one was kind of silly:

Darrah, Greenville, SC

Found in shallow tropical and temperate waters throughout the world, these upright-swimming relatives of the pipefish can range in size from 0.6 inches (1.5 centimeters) to 14 inches (35 centimeters) long.

They certainly are unique and gorgeous animals. Hopefully we won't lose them.

#1 - Thu May 26, 2011 7:25 PM EDT

nonStitiousZealot

So , like in your next reincarnation , you want to come back as a seahorse ?

#2 - Thu May 26, 2011 10:11 PM EDT

I was just minding my own business and seeding a little article about seahorses. No, is wasn't an extreme dig--not something like "the wicked witch" from Oz would do, but more like something that one of the flying monkeys would do.

One thing about being on newsvine for awhile is that you get to see the petty little members who want to continue being hooked up to petty little game players, whether they're still here or not. That's what annoys me, just like a @!$%#ing gnat that won't get out of your face.

The type Darrah that cannot for the life of them get over making snarky or off the wall remarks. I guess they believe that this is communicating with others.

Dozens of trouble making trolls get banned every week ( maybe every day). Who cares about one more?

Some people do:

1-Their friends!

2- If the banned person had strong political views, many of those with similar views really do care-- and are unhappy about the banning. Many of those with opposing views really do care (& are happy about the banning).

3. If the banned person posted/seeded a lot of inflammatory stuff, those who were really annoyed by that and think the banning will actually make a significant difference in the overall tone on the 'Vine care...

4. Site administrators: They would care if the banned person was a constant headache for them....

5. Those folks who think that everyone on a site has a "right to free speech" and everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want to, and banning anyone for anything they say is a "violation of the right to free speech", and probably a violation of the U.S.Constitution...(and that no administrator on any site has the right to ban anyone...ever!).

I have seen examples of all of that..

Hey Darrah @#2.16 ,

That's what annoys me, just like a @!$%#ing gnat that won't get out of your face.

IIRC that comment you are complaining so vehemently about [from 2 months ago !] was the only comment you got on that seed .

But if you prefer being completely ignored , that is pretty much what I've been doing with you for months . Frankly , the defensiveness you've shown just in this thread is reason enough to pretend you don't exist .

Re 2.18: Jack Orion, I basically do agree with what I believe to be the point you were making-- IMNSHO, the banning of any individual ultimately has no significant effect on the general tone of discussions on NV. And yet-- So often people make a huge fuss out of someone being banned (or even leaving of their own accord).

Occasionally I've even read comments here about a person being banned, (or leaving of their own accord) -- where I get the impression a person feels that since someone was no longer on the 'Vine, their life will not be the same! (Perhaps in some cases they even feel their life is no longer worth living! Oh== the horror of it all!)

(Can you say "Drama Queen"?)

Life is much better without that posse of vampires bottom line. We can debate without name-calling personal attacks and whining about each and every slight that ever happened to this type.

js-445607- I take it this means that you feel that things have changed significantly (for the better) on the "Vine since Driftie's (heh :-) leaving-- and also that you feel that his is due to her no longer being here?

krishna whether Driftwood was posting articles or comments she incited the type of response that was continually antagonistic. Her followers copied her style much of the time so if any of them came over to hit a site they didn't like it was a guarantee that a derailment was in the works. It was difficult to read how the "left" was favored and full of you-know-what and to blame for everything that went awry on newsvine and for their little posse. I observed their roaming routines and felt it was simply unnecessary. Since Driftwood left some of her buddies are still here but the starch has come out of their collars and they are not so inclined to continually derail an article they do not like.

James, don't you think it's time to create that group in memory of Driftwood?

Excellent suggestion!

And in addition, the very least we could do would be to have a traditional old-fashioned wake to commemorate this extremely important & highly significant milestone in all of our lives!

(/sarcasm)

Here's a traditional song for an Irish wake.

The Night That Paddy Murphy Died.

Since Driftwood left some of her buddies are still here but the starch has come out of their collars and they are not so inclined to continually derail an article they do not like.

I don't know if you could call Driftwood "my buddy," but where I always agreed with her or not she was a friend. And I do still have plenty of starch in my collar. I don't need someone else's opinion to put starch in my collar.

James has it right. There does seem to still be bias on here. I see plenty of leader type seeders with a base of followers/buddies, that seed numerous junk articles plastered on the front page every day. Yet because there are some that think those junk seeds are ok, true, and they are buddy's with the seeder, its all good. Most of those seeds are worthless pieces of inflammatory no-news, just as it is being said Driftwood seeded the same type articles. There is no difference here. Just for the record, I don't agree with the re-reg from anyone.

Here's a traditional song for an Irish wake.

The Night That Paddy Murphy Died.

Great link! :-)

Guess there's a bit of Irishman in us all...Erin go Brouagh! 6-)

Oh wow, do I remember the good times... when a certain viner would show all of us kids some funny pictures, videos...tell a couple of sex jokes while playing dress-up....Those were the days, my fiend.

Let's get some glasses.

Yup :
Those were the days, my fiend.

That Irish wake song took me back, Wheel, thanks!

I love the Pogues, here's another wake song for Driftwood. And please remember, all in fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saa55aVN8NQ&playnext=1&list=PL3467FB79BE5576D0

nonStitiousZealot

Yup :
Those were the days, my fiend

I wrote "fiend"on purpose and it wasn't for you.

I thought you were going to pretend I don't exist.

But if you prefer being completely ignored , that is pretty much what I've been doing with you for months . Frankly , the defensiveness you've shown just in this thread is reason enough to pretend you don't exist .

I only prefer to be ignored by you (and a couple of others) if you insist on being nasty.

Speaking of nasty, we use to look at images of girls mud wrestling.

Here (G-rated)

Forgive and forget?

Speaking of nasty, we use to look at images of girls mud wrestling.

I used to post them . I was never sure if you actually looked at them .

Nothing personal but your version of "nasty" and mine seem to be 2 very different things . Since I'm never sure if I'm offending you or not , it is probably best if we avoid each other .

Darrah and nonStitiousZealot you crack me up.

Nothing personal but your version of "nasty" and mine seem to be 2 very different things . Since I'm never sure if I'm offending you or not , it is probably best if we avoid each other .

My son went to a holiday gathering and everyone had drawn a person's name for the gift giving. He purchased something for his person and there was a rousing round of applause when the gift was revealed. When he opened his gift he found playing cards with bare breasted women on the backs. He was burned and when he told me about this I wanted to laugh but you know it is very serious. His protest was that the woman giving him that crappy gift knew he wouldn't like it. Then he decided that perhaps they would be better off snubbing each other.

Thanks for the anecdote Susan .

Since I'm never sure if I'm offending you or not , it is probably best if we avoid each other .

Or, of course, you could both adopt a strategy that seems to be quite popular amongst some people here:

Put each other on "Ignore" (after first announcing it publicly). Then, after putting someone on ignore...every time they make a comment be sure to reply to it..and explain that you have put them on "Ignore"! :-)

The "curiosity killed the cat" syndrome, but without the satisfaction at the end. :)

Put each other on "Ignore" (after first announcing it publicly). Then, after putting someone on ignore...every time they make a comment be sure to reply to it..and explain that you have put them on "Ignore"! :-)

I've got a couple of people on ignore who often respond to my comments (you can tell from what other people cut and paste). You'd think by now they'd realize that they never get responses from me. Maybe I erred in not announcing it? ;0)

. Maybe I erred in not announcing it? ;0)

Probably wouldn't make any difference..lol!

I was under the impression that this article was SUPPOSED to be about how NV has/has not changed since Driftwood's banning. NOT about Driftwood. Why do you people keep bringing HER into it? Her banning started the Time Line that james is discussing in this article.

Yet some of you can't keep yourselves from continuing to bash her, or (even WORSE) to bash her friends. Except for PWT - who had the audacity to make it about HIMSELF.

without the satisfaction at the end. :)

Sometimes you can get what you want, but you have to dig for it.

#52.16 - Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:26 PM PDT

#11.6 - Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:33 PM PDT [banned]

#3.5 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:07 PM PDT

kjmgirl james put it out there and used Driftwood as an example. The majority of these posts are not bashing Driftwood and more commenting on her style. Have you actually read the comments or are you simply assuming that this is a "bash Driftwood" article? You are wrong in your assumption.

js - read this far and got disgusted.

james I think your article has a lot of merit. Yes, there were deviations from your intent but in the long run I believe you have opened a means of discussion that covers the whole of Newsvine. The comments here have set a tone in what most feel they would like Newsvine to look like. How are we suppose to know the intent without the comments? I think I have a better understanding of the overall picture of Newsvine and have connected with a couple of members that usually disagree me me and me with them. I appreciate what you've done here and even with the mixing it up a bit I believe your article has been very valuable.

kjmgirl you didn't read far enough because a lot of issues have been resolved. As james mentioned in his post:

I think much of the argument posed here supports my stances....so they can stand.

For Newsvine to be what we all hope it will be discussions such as these are beneficial. I think Driftwood's intent is better understood and she was very good at what she did. I don't think she is the focus half as much as the riling the troops and stirring up decent. It was her job and the way she performed it, not her personally, that truly sparked the conversations.

Js:

Seriously, for NewsVine to really thrive and to actually be what all of us know it can be, it will take folks on both sides to call foul on those who engage in ad hominems against those who don't agree with them,

period.

When that starts to happen, when a leftie calls another lefty out, and a rightie does the same, then change may happen.

I do it when it gets very personal (except if it's tit for tat stuff), but I don't see others who are doing it.

Of course I haven't been spending lots of time here. But that is what folks on The News Talkers do and it is effective as hell!

Yet some of you can't keep yourselves from continuing to bash her, or (even WORSE) to bash her friends. Except for PWT - who had the audacity to make it about HIMSELF.

kjmgirl,

Considering this article only exists because of a discussion that James and I just had a day before, and he severely distorted my statements in order to attack them in this story, I think I was perfectly justified in complaining.

This isn't your column where you threaten to delete people because they aren't saying what you want them to say, and thinking what you want them think. Here, you just have to deal with the fact that Newsviners aren't zombies for you to own and control.

I'll say what I please.

Don't like it?

Leave.

I sucks when we come into an article and have to read several hundred comments to see where it eventually leads but that's how it goes. Coming in reading a half dozen posts and jumping in never really works that well. I think if we can't take time to read the article and the comments perhaps it is better to move on to something a bit more fresh with less reading to do.

js - read this far and got disgusted

Well-- then keep reading!

, I realized that being in politics on NV wasn't worth it.

Darrah, Greenville, SC-- I think more and more Viners are starting to fell that way!

Why do you obsess so much about being on the front page? I join groups so that I can find articles that interest me. Being on the front page doesn't mean much - and being on the leaderboard due to beating dead horses doesn't either. If Driftwood made it to the front page because she wrote controversial crap, that doesn't mean she was an asset to Newsvine.

"Hate an Bait" articles are always a draw and will get a lot of comments and votes. This doesn't mean the subject matter is profound and one worthy of intellectual debate.

"Hate an Bait" articles

Apt description.

Apt description.

Hm, yes. I normally avoid those types of articles. It's easily done - you can tell just by the headline alone. Even so, I ended up on her seeds a few times and, when I commented that the article seemed designed purely as "flame bait" I got threatened with deletion. Didn't break my heart at all, just confirmed my opinion of what she was about. Having said that, though, she seemed to engage a lot better on OTHER people's articles.

Ah, well.

I write articles quite often that never make it to the front page...yet some with less comments and votes do....dont know why....i even wrote an article about that...which of course didnt make it to the frontpage.

james-1416766,

Welcome to the club. Write more, write better.

"Hate an Bait" articles are always a draw and will get a lot of comments and votes.

I think in many (most?) cases that is quite true. And if that's the case, it might be a good strategy for those who wish to get on the Leaderboard?

For those of us that have no desire to be on the popular end of the leaderboard it is simply annoying. :) I checked on the top leaderboard members and some are msnbc news staff. They link and don't bother to make a lead in comment. At least the Newsvine team knows how to pull in interested posters. What good is it if one links 600 articles and they are all zeros in votes and comments yet the authors are in the top 25? Wow, that's impressive...not. Popular isn't always what its cut out to be. LOL

"Hate an Bait" articles are always a draw and will get a lot of comments and votes.

I think in many (most?) cases that is quite true. And if that's the case, it might be a good strategy for those who wish to get on the Leaderboard?

But that's not unique to NV. There's a saying in the news media:

If it bleeds, it leads

There will always be more sensational articles and inflammatory headlines than there are thoughtful analyses and strictly factual articles. Both sides are guilty of it. but that is how we have come to expect both our news, and commentary.

The only reason I am grateful that some people are banned is the lessening of personal attacks and foul language.

Well, Wheel-- as you so astutely observed: at least there's no longer any "president bashing, anti-american, right wing, mindless crap" here on the Vine anymore. And, again, as you pointed out-- it is definitely a plus that "no one has stepped up to fill her @!$%# covered boots.".

AI least we have that to be thankful for! :-)

I didn't say that krishna. I said any other spiteful malicious ignoramus could seed the same thing...and in fact, some are in a piecemeal way. It just seems that no one wants to step up into her place. Thankfully. I'm sure someone will come along sooner or later...probably sooner.

I hate the vitriol and am SO HAPPY they seem to track down the re regs more quickly. I think the Vine is more pleasant these days.

But here's the key question, at least in terms of the assertion that any change is due to the banning of Driftwood. Isn't it possible that any such change, if it did indeed occur, might be due to a change in moderation policy/style of the admins-- and not be due to the departure of Driftie?

It might be because of the phase of the moon, but I suspect Driftwood's banning had more to do with it than the moon being in the 7th house. Drifty was a poisonous influence, even on people who disliked her and her style.

That said:

Isn't it possible that any such change, if it did indeed occur, might be due to a change in moderation policy/style of the admins--

Sally has really been stepping up to the plate lately. She's been all over the MSNBC threads.

But here's the key question, at least in terms of the assertion that any change is due to the banning of Driftwood. Isn't it possible that any such change, if it did indeed occur, might be due to a change in moderation policy/style of the admins-- and not be due to the departure of Driftie?

I don't know.

If you live in a neighborhood where there is a neighbor who constantly strews garbage all over the street, that neighbor gets evicted from the neighborhood, and the abundance of constantly strewn garbage disappears along with the neighbor, what is the logical conclusion?

Between you and that American..whats his name, you two have posted what seem like 99% of the remember DW? Don't you miss DW? Let's talk about DW!!!! stories.

Making her a martyr may not be your intention, but that is the result.

SteveWatts has a great point, J.

Let's face it: me and you won't agree on much, if anything, but that does not imply I don't respect you. If you ask me, you're now in a position to be the seeder that Driftwood could only dream to be. You could post pro-conservative articles without being a total asshat about it.

Rally support for the hot button issues I mentioned earlier, and be the conservative leader/activist that Driftwood never was. Just remember though, sometimes it's about quantity AND quality. It's hard to be a real top seeder though, so be prepared to fight an uphill battle. Depends on how well you can sell yourself and your articles.

Kind of like playing real politics, only on the internets.

Making her a martyr may not be your intention, but that is the result.

I think that's happened several times in the past-- people attempting to make a martyr out of the departed (And sometimes it seems-- it actually is intentional)

I think that's happened several times in the past-- people attempting to make a martyr out of the departed (And sometimes it seems-- it actually is intentional)

I did an article a while back about Viners that had voluntarily left (Ellie P, Juno Hera, Bill Harrison, ED Kain, etc)...My intent was just basic memories and telling the story of how many of them helped me find my way around the Vine early on. By the time we got a mere 10 posts deep in the thing, it was reading like a eulogy! Definitely NOT my intent.

I guess there really is a 'Law of Unintended Consequences' after all!

I don't know or remember any of those people except Bill Harrison. He's an odd case. Please understand that I'm not saying this to put him in a bad light, I'm just remembering here. There was a time when I read his content and would leave a comment here or there saying things that sound like placation or platitudes, but I honestly meant them when I said things like I don't agree with any of this, but you made a superbly intelligent and persuasive case, so I *have* to vote for this.

Then 2006 and 2008 happened and he seemed to change. No more intelligent arguments for a belief (as opposed to negative arguments against a cause or person). Or at least far fewer. In fact, he mostly turned into a dick in comments. Lots of drive-by stuff. Edging ever closer to the COH line day after day.

I'm going out a limb here and may be wrong about Harrison, but I felt like he was one of a group of people on Newsvine (and obviously in the country) that really bought into the 2006 and 2008 GOP apocalyptic ultimatums.

Check out this special comment by Keith Olbermann. Before you roll your eyes, I'm not asking you to like Keith or accept his opinion as truth. That's not the point. I want you to watch this special comment to see parts of a commercial run on TV in 2006 by the Republican National Committee.

Here's Keith's description of it in the first minute of his comment if you won't go watch it for yourself:

The commercial, you have already seen, it is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.

It is from the Republican National Committee, it shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. It offers quotes from them, all as a clock ticks ominously in the background. It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001, his dubious claim that he had purchased suitcase bombs. The quotation is followed by sheer coincidence, no doubt, by an image of a massive explosion. "These are the stakes" appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson's infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964, "Vote November 7th".

And here's a CNN story on it.

Then on November 7th, America handed near complete control over Congress to the Democratic Party. Suddenly the world that Bill Harrison knew and understood no longer seemed to exist.

And he just couldn't deal with that.

I suppose everyone has that happen to a smaller degree. But I told you that X person was Y, and it's just so incredible. How could you not believe me?!?

Anyone who bought into the worst of the 2006 and 2008 rhetoric, instead of treating it for what it was – rhetoric – was going to be changed by that. And I guess he was one of them.

I'm sure that's what you saw PWT.

However, what you "see" is not, necessarily, reality.

2008, 2009 were nasty, nasty times on the Vine, the lefties couldn't say enough horrific things, they were gone over the edge, period.

Bill Harrison was an extremely bright, knowledgeable guy. He was a fugee and could take it with the rest of everyone.

It wasn't he that became bizarre, it was the left on the Vine, I know, I left at the same time.

Is it still the same? I don''t know, I'm dipping my toes back in, we shall see.

a fugee

Bill Harrison was Haitian-American-- and into hip hop?

Interesting-- I hadn't known that!

2008, 2009 were nasty, nasty times on the Vine, the lefties couldn't say enough horrific things, they were gone over the edge, period.

If that is true, and if that has changed-- what do you think caused the change?

Krishna:

Simple, Obama is president! It really is that simple. Now they are in circle the wagons mode, not attack the wagon train mode.

You can still see the attack the wagon train mode, however, just go on a thread about Palin, Bachmann, Pawlenty, or any potential Republican candidate.

And that was a NYT Refugee, better known as a fugee! But you knew that!

Many good, bright posters with a right leaning slant have been run off the Vine due to fricking nastiness, Epiphany Sorbet comes to mind.

She was constantly stalked, gang collapsed, attacked. And it was all because she had such a wonderful, pithy, yet penetrating posting style!

Good morning james, did you get my email?

2008, 2009 were nasty, nasty times on the Vine, the lefties couldn't say enough horrific things, they were gone over the edge, period.

wmolaw,

To some degree I think liberals should get a bit more leeway here. Remember, we've been dealing with these "horrific things" since 2001. Over a decade now. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war? I can't count the number of times I respectfully debated people about the merits of war with Iraq only to hear back why do you hate America?. And then when we could call for withdrawal, we'd hear why do you hate the troops?. And liberals want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And then when we opposed war crimes (aka torture of prisoners), it was liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy followed by liberals want to give terrorists hugs and cookies.

Then in 2006, we got commercials like the one from the RNC. Mushroom clouds. Ticking bombs. Photos of Osama bin Laden. These are the stakes. John McCain showed graphic footage of the 9/11 attacks on a big TV screen at the Republican National Convention like it was entertainment.

There was a time not so long ago that someone said to my face that liberals were worse than terrorists, and he meant it. I don't doubt that give the right situation, he'd have more fun killing us than actual terrorists.

This all happened before 2008 and 2009. In fact this had been going on for half a decade prior.

All that predated the Obama is a secret Muslim socialist/marxist/maoist from Kenya that wants to implement sharia law in America while personally aborting at least 50 babies per day while taking away every single gun you have. (The gun smear was particularly retarded since Obama hasn't lifted a finger on gun regulation.)

Whatever "my side" has done in the past 2-3 years isn't excused by the 8+ years of "horrific things" the right has been tossing at us, but if we're going to discuss that rationally and reasonably, then you guys need to remember who started this, how it started, and why.

I've said this before and I'm saying it again right now. Perhaps it's not the thing people should aspire to, but it's what I've got. I'll stop saying the nasty things over here the day I see Republicans begin apologizing for asking me why I hate my own country, just because I opposed a war they favored. Because I dared to think differently.

FYI, I won't be holding my breath.

It wasn't he that became bizarre, it was the left on the Vine, I know, I left at the same time.

He definitely got screwed up, that's not debatable. It's why it happened that matters.

Many good, bright posters with a right leaning slant have been run off the Vine due to fricking nastiness, Epiphany Sorbet comes to mind.

She was constantly stalked, gang collapsed, attacked. And it was all because she had such a wonderful, pithy, yet penetrating posting style!

Yes-- I remeber her. She really was unique-- but she was really hounded by many-- just because her political viewpoints differed from theirs. In her case, leaving was a loss of someone who really contributed s lot of positive stuff...

PTW:

ACtually, the lefties went whacko after 2000, and you know it. That was a defining moment in this Country as far as left and right went. The left couldn't stand the loss, period, and they acted that way.

Any reconstructive history to the contrary, those are just the facts.

I'll stop saying the nasty things over here the day I see Republicans begin apologizing for asking me why I hate my own country, just because I opposed a war they favored. Because I dared to think differently.

You make my point for me, lefties are and will remain nasty over perceived slights, true or not.

That's for you to deal with.

ACtually, the lefties went whacko after 2000, and you know it. That was a defining moment in this Country as far as left and right went. The left couldn't stand the loss, period, and they acted that way.

Like I said, I wasn't going to hold my breath for the right to take responsibility.

Oh, she left before I did, mid 2009? Really good poster, a NYT Refugee.

PWT:

I know,it's always about you, but not your fault, or the left's fault. Funny how folks can see the exact same event occur, and have a completely different perception of its cause, and its effect.

I know,it's always about you, but not your fault, or the left's fault.

There's a term for your behavior.

I've blamed the Democratic Party for the things it's responsible for consistently for years. Their part in creating the financial crisis by supporting the GOP deregulation spree of Wall Street in the 90s is just one example of that. My argument that Barack Obama should be impeached for authorizing the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki -- an American citizen not engaged in hostilities and far away from any battlefield -- is another.

Anyone I've ever discussed those two issues with knows that, and anyone that doesn't, doesn't know enough about me to be making the claims that you have made without displaying a terrible arrogance.

Can you say the same for yourself? Did you argue that George W. Bush should have been impeached for authorizing the torture of terrorists and prisoners, which is a war crime? Have you faulted the GOP for their primary role in creating the conditions that directly lead to the recession? Have you criticized the GOP which, as a majority, derides the filibuster as unconstitutional obstruction, then then as a minority, set all-time records for using the filibuster just a few years later?

Have you ever held yourself or your side responsible in any meaningful way?

I have. So, with no due respect, check yourself before bringing that crap to my door.

PWT ,

My argument that Barack Obama should be impeached for authorizing the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki -- an American citizen not engaged in hostilities and far away from any battlefield -- is another.

Does this mean you would also have been against the assassination of Osama bin Laden ?

I got lost in the topic-jump. PWT wrote:

argument that Barack Obama should be impeached for authorizing the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki -- an American citizen not engaged in hostilities and far away from any battlefield

nSZ----are you saying Osama bin Laden was an American citizen not engaged in hostilities, and far away from any battlefield? Is that how you substituted into his argument?

I'm not saying anything . I am just asking a question . Is that alright with you ?

Oh, I see. Don't like explaining your faulty reasoning. But carry on..... PWT will clear it up, no doubt.

There was no reasoning intended or implied . I am attempting to clarify PWT's above controversial statement . I would like to hear his take on this .
But like a faithful guard dog , you felt the need to jump in and protect him . How touching ....

Does this mean you would also have been against the assassination of Osama bin Laden ?

nonStitiousZealot,

The killing of bin Laden was explicitly authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001). Section 2, (a): "..the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Such legislation does not and cannot apply to American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, except under very specific and narrow circumstances (such as taking up weapons to fight on a battlefield, often defined as an area or theater of conflict like Afghanistan.) In case you're wondering why it matters, the laws of war differentiate between someone who is actually fighting, and someone 'on the other side'. Most people understand the need for a country to kill its own citizens in war when those people have taken the side of the enemy and are actually engaged in combat. In that respect things like due process are not absolute. But that's why the case of Al-Awlaki matters. He isn't fighting on any battlefield, which means killing him without due process isn't just an American crime by the Constitution and federal law, it's also a war crime.

Anwar Al-Awlaki is not in Afghanistan, he's in Yemen. He isn't fighting, he's talking. And even encouraging people to kill Americans and to go to war against America is protected speech under the first amendment (Brandenburg v. Ohio). Al-Awlaki, like you, myself, and everyone else in this country that's a citizen (and arguably others that are not) are guaranteed the right of due process. We must be charged with a crime and given a trial. That is not optional, nor is it up for debate. Due process of law is the very core of the American notion of fairness and every other right ceases to exist without it.

The state (specifically the executive) cannot unilaterally declare any citizen an enemy to be killed. The mere thought of that would have the founders rolling in their graves and if need be, fighting yet another war to stop such tyranny.

If Bush had ever expressed these thoughts I'd have called for his impeachment as well. Yet as @!$%#ed up as this is, Obama is actually worse in this area. He put an end to the Bush torture program but replaced it with targeted assassinations of Americans.

*sigh*

PWT ,

Thanks for clarifying your position . You have pointed to a specific statute that applies to those who :

planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks

. That explains your lack of disagreement with the OBL sanction .

The thing I'm not clear on is whether or not there is some part of other statutes [the Patriot Act for example] which would apply to Al-Awlaki . It would not surprise me if there was . But it would take an accomplished legal scholar to say categorically that there is no such statutory support . That is why I'm going to
withold support for your impeachment plan .

However , it may be possible to research what statute that Obama used .
That might clear up all ambiguity .

But like a faithful guard dog , you felt the need to jump in and protect him . How touching ....

Sorry, save that for someone who'll bite that bait.

1. PWT doesn't need protecting
2. Faithful -- doesn't that require commitment -- to someone with history? This is only the 2nd article I remember interacting with PWT, so we have little history.
3. I am not a dog
4. Guard Dog -- "used to guard against, and watch for, unwanted or unexpected people or animals." Check it out -- if I'm asking you to explain yourself, that is NOT guarding against your participation -- it is rather encouraging further participation -- the exact opposite.

Your response is therefore -- flip. Noted.

SA ,

it is rather encouraging further participation -- the exact opposite.

You are starting to sound delusional .

Your response is therefore -- flip. Noted.

Making a list are you ?

The thing I'm not clear on is whether or not there is some part of other statutes [the Patriot Act for example] which would apply to Al-Awlaki . […] But it would take an accomplished legal scholar to say categorically that there is no such statutory support

nonStitiousZealot,

It wouldn't matter if they did. The USA PATRIOT Act is a federal law, which is trumped by the Constitution. All federal and state law is superseded by the Constitution. I'm sure some people would argue otherwise (the Bush administration often tried when it came to detentions at Guantanamo Bay.)

But they are wrong.

However , it may be possible to research what statute that Obama used .

The Obama administration has used the same creepy, authoritarian and reprehensible arguments that the Bush administration pioneered when it tried to deny habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants. So the argument goes, the executive has unstated, unilateral authority in all matters of national security to determine what (or who) a national security threat is, and deal with it any way they see fit. And such questions are political, not legal, and therefore beyond the authority of the judiciary to question.

It doesn't take a legal scholar to see what bull@!$%# that is. If the executive had such power, it'd be in the Constitution in plain verse. It's not. And it can't both be an inherent constitutional power related to defense, security, and war making powers if it's a "political question" beyond the reach of the courts.

I suggest these for reading:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

when it tried to deny habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants.

Those rights are only guaranteed to US citizens . The constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to citizens .
Why are you extending them outside of their venue ?

Those rights are only guaranteed to US citizens . The constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to citizens. Why are you extending them outside of their venue ?

That's a common misconception. The Constitution limits rights to citizens, like the right to vote, when it means to. And it expands them everyone when it means to. You have to read it carefully.

Due process for everyone in the 5th amendment:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Addressing only citizens in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Habeas Corpus in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Bill of Rights isn't actually a list of rights so much as it is prohibition on government conduct. The first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In reality, it's people who aren't familiar with the Constitution and Supreme Court case precedent that are trying to inappropriately limit it to only American citizens.

I read what you had to say about the constitutional lack of limitations .
All I can say is I have my doubts . I know that when resident aliens violate
laws they are often deported even before a trial .

All aliens receive hearings before before immigration judges and can appeal the ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals, an appeals court, and eventually the Supreme Court. Allowing them to challenge the deportation in a court of law -- several courts in fact -- satisfies the due process clause of the fifth amendment.

Sounds like an expensive process .
I don't think aliens get those rights if they have not kept up with their paperwork . If , for example , they overstay beyond the time limits of their visas then , they just get deported .

Paul:

There are many issues which you are not addressing, first, jurisdiction, second, the varying rights of citizens vs. others.

As you note, aliens are NOT treated the same as citizens. Thus, they are not equal to citizens under our Constitution.

Lots of other issues, though I will agree that Obama has continued, if not accelerated and expanded the attempts by GW to circumvent the provision of certain rights.

Yes, that does seem to be in vogue the last twenty years or so.

Sounds like an expensive process .

nonStitiousZealot,

Democracy and a civil society is not cheap. It shouldn't be.

I don't think aliens get those rights if they have not kept up with their paperwork

They do. What I said is not my opinion, FYI, it's how things are. Not having kept up with their papers may negatively impact their hearings, but they still get hearings.

* * *

As you note, aliens are NOT treated the same as citizens. Thus, they are not equal to citizens under our Constitution.

wmolaw ,

Yeah, but that's not really what we were talking about. nSZ said the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens at all. That's not true, as I showed. Now I'm sure there's an interesting debate to be had over whether it should be that way or not, but the two are entirely different discussions.

If you guys want, read Boumediene v. Bush. Even though the decision was 5-4, as Glenn Greenwald wrote on this issue, "..none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens."

Greenwald on Scalia's dissent:

Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ:

"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . . . .

"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." Id., at 770–771.

That's from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ -- not even Antonin Scalia -- believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. -- not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

What I find interesting is that it has become a sort of tradition on the right – not necessairly you guys – to venerate America as the greatest country in the world, and Americans as the greatest people. But then they think the Constitution shouldn't protect non-citizens and things like that, and don't realize that it's things like that which make this country so special. You won't find a country willing to extend the most important rights afforded to its citizens to aliens, like the United States does. To change that is to change America into something less, and I for one don't really think we should do that.

But to each their own.

PWT:

What I find interesting is that it has become a sort of tradition on the right – not necessairly you guys – to venerate America as the greatest country in the world, and Americans as the greatest people. But then they think the Constitution shouldn't protect non-citizens and things like that, and don't realize that it's things like that which make this country so special.

I think there is some difference between treating immigrants one way, and treating those who are breaking the law differently.

That is the point many on the right make, and continue to make! At least that is true of myself.

Me, I'm for letting everyone in the Country have amnesty, or a path to amnesty, but the BORDER has to be shut to do that, period!

I find it fascinating that our current Gestapo will grope a 7 year old girl's crotch, but won't address the fact that muslim terrorist organizations are using our Southern border to enter this Country.

Don't you find that bizarre?

And get ready for new depredations against our rights PWT, Ms. Gestapo came out today screaming about potential terror attacks against nuke stations, our water supply, etc!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-alert-warns-insider-threat-infrastructure/story?id=14118119

Every time she opens her mouth, additional civil liberties, freedoms, go out the window!

PWT ,

Our initial discussion was about your declaration that Obama's actions against Al-Awlaki were illegal . All I can say is that during times of war certain rights are suspended . There is a lot of historical precedent for that kind of action . Even though he is an American citizen I do not find it surprising what has been planned . And what applies to US citizens is even more applicable to foreigners . They must be determined to be or not be
enemy combatants in a war .

All I can say is that during times of war certain rights are suspendedThey must be determined to be or not be
enemy combatants in a war .

is it "officially" a war now?

From this link :

The deliberate choice of military justice after the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was substantially legitimated by Congress through the passage of the Military Commission Act (MCA) in 2006. The MCA identified "unlawful enemy combatants" (to include persons associated with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and specified terrorist organizations) and thereby denied their entitlement to the internationally recognized privileges of combatancy, such as immunity from prosecution for war-connected violence, and protection against extensive interrogation.

Terrorists, who operate secretly, who do not carry their weapons openly, who fail to identify themselves by insignias or uniforms, and who otherwise do not seek to comply with other internationally mandated criteria required for privileged combatancy status, have been designated by both the United States executive and legislative branches as unlawful enemy combatants, rather than criminal offenders against United States criminal law. As "unlawful enemy combatants," they were to be entitled to few of the privileges of lawful combatants and were to be burdened with tremendous liabilities; they could be seized without compliance with constitutional safeguards. They could be interrogated, held without trial until the government chose to release them, and were to be denied access to judicial review and counsel.

Me, I'm for letting everyone in the Country have amnesty, or a path to amnesty, but the BORDER has to be shut to do that, period!

wmolaw,

If you're going to let undocumented immigrants avoid deportation and attain citizenship, what's the argument for then closing the border? That doesn't make sense to me. Given the size of the border and how incredibly small the problem of illegal immigration is (people may hate the idea of, but seriously, we're talking about a victimless crime roughly equivalent to jay walking), I say just open the borders up. Allow anyone to come in that wants to, save for common sense considerations like national security. (In other words stop putting arbitrary and pointless limits on guest and worker visas).

Problem solved.

I find it fascinating that our current Gestapo will grope a 7 year old girl's crotch, but won't address the fact that muslim terrorist organizations are using our Southern border to enter this Country.

Unlike the al Qaeda terrorists that came into the country legally with visas? If terrorists want to enter the country, they will, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop that. Therefore it's not justification for closing the border; it's simple fear mongering.

Don't you find that bizarre?

That's not a question that I can answer with a yes or no. Terrorists have been known to use children as suicide bombers in other countries.

Every time she opens her mouth, additional civil liberties, freedoms, go out the window!

Such could be said for every person in the past two administrations. The emergence of the national security state has been one of the most frequent topics for Glenn Greenwald's Salon column. Every time we're asked to sacrifice a bit of our freedom, it's immediately after a convenient new threat of terrorism. It has been that way for over a decade now.

* * *

.but it is the law of the land right now

james-1416766,

I've never, ever argued that laws on the books shouldn't be enforced. If you think I'd do that, then you don't know anything about me. I suggest you read my column more often.

* * *

Our initial discussion was about your declaration that Obama's actions against Al-Awlaki were illegal . All I can say is that during times of war certain rights are suspended

nonStitiousZealot ,

Yes, which is why I alluded to the "far away from any battlefield" phrase so many times. That's one of those exceptions. If a citizen takes up arms against his or her own country – on a battlefield – then things like due process go out the window. It's the same with police officers and the imminent danger exceptions that allow them to fatally shoot someone not even suspected of a crime, if the situation justifies it.

Anwar Al-Awlaki has not taken up arms against the United States, and is no where near any battlefield like Iraq or Afghanistan. No exceptions apply here. If Obama wants him dead, he needs to capture Al-Awlaki or have him extradited, charge him with a crime, and hope a jury finds him guilty of something where the death sentence applies. He has no other choices.

There is a lot of historical precedent for that kind of action

Indeed, and all of it falls on the side of Obama committing impeachable crimes.

They must be determined to be or not be enemy combatants in a war .

Al-Awlaki is not an enemy combatant. Even the Obama administration has not made that claim.

From this link :

Note that parts of the Military Commissions Act (2006) were struck down as unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush, the case where prisoners at Gitmo were found to have Habeas Corpus rights.

Illegal immigration itself might be victimless, although i think that is debatable given factors such as public assistance and jobs that are spread even more thinly accordingly. However, the real problem comes from the lack of documentation. A person fling under the radar can really do just about anything without legal repercussions, since it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to find said people after any misdeeds. Which spreads law enforcement out even more, reducing their efficiency accordingly (like that word).

I think the solution is fairly simple. Offer an amnesty for those already living here, and are working and/or raising families. They are basically grandfathered in as citizens. We then really devote our attention to the borders. Without having to track down the millions of illegals already here,we can really be effective on the border. Somebody dedicated enough will certainly slip through, but the majority will be stopped, and the flow will be stemmed nicely. We then encourage Mexico in particular, although not exclusively, to not only stop encouraging illegal immigration, but also to be willing to punish offenders on their end. The real truth is people can travel back and forth still with passports should they simply choose to vacation or what have you, and can certainly apply for work visas. Since that is the proper and legal way to go about things, everybody ends up in a win win situation.

#/8.43 ,

There is a lot of historical precedent for that kind of action

Indeed, and all of it falls on the side of Obama committing impeachable crimes.

Fine . So go ahead and impeach Abraham Lincoln [posthumously , of course ] for suspending the writ of habeas corpus .

BTW ,

Given that the war on terror is a real war I would think that Al-Awlaki
might be guilty of treason . Since we can't get him extradited ...

However, the real problem comes from the lack of documentation. A person fling under the radar can really do just about anything without legal repercussions, since it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to find said people after any misdeeds.

Peter Faden ,

Anyone can do that, whether they are here legally or not. James "Whitey" Bulger was on the FBI's most wanted list for like 17 years and managed to stay hidden that long.

* * *

Fine . So go ahead and impeach Abraham Lincoln [posthumously , of course ] for suspending the writ of habeas corpus .

nonStitiousZealot,

I don't see the point in such rhetoric, but I would note that Lincoln was rebuffed by the courts and he ignored a lawful court order to stop. He should have been impeached for that.

Given that the war on terror is a real war I would think that Al-Awlaki might be guilty of treason

The keyword here is think. You don't know, and you can't make that pronouncement yourself. Nor can the President, nor anyone else in the United States other than a jury of Al-Awlaki's peers, and only after he is given a trial and allowed to challenge those claims and defend himself from them.

Since we can't get him extradited ...

And how do you even know that? Has America even tried to have him arrested in Yemen?

PWT:

The belief that ANY CITIZEN can disappear is false. Some can, but most are incapable of doing so....for every one example of a documented person actually evading capture, i guarantee there are hundreds if not thousands of people who do get caught within a reasonably short period of time, which i assign as a year or less. Plus, we actually know who they are even if they do evade capture. There is something to be said for that.

And how do you even know that? Has America even tried to have him arrested in Yemen?

Yemen has no extradition treaty with the US .
Why do you think he picked Yemen to hide out in ?

Seriously - Yemen? Off topic. Please start another article.

The belief that ANY CITIZEN can disappear is false. Some can, but ...

Peter Faden,

That's quite the glaring contradiction, sir.

* * *

Yemen has no extradition treaty with the US. Why do you think he picked Yemen to hide out in ?

nonStitiousZealot,

He's not "hiding out". Al-Alwaki moved to Yemen in 2002, a place he lived for 11 years as a child and young adult, and the birthplace of his parents. You should look into this a little more before jumping to conclusions like that, IMHO.

From this link we get that he is a member of the al-Qaeda terror network .

According to U.S. officials, he is a senior talent recruiter and motivator, who has also become "operational" as a planner and trainer, "for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises"
.....
With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he has been described as the "bin Laden of the Internet

From that link you got an unproven claim from anonymous people. "According to U.S. officials" is not the legal standard of guilt in federal law or the Constitution. I don't know how many times I have to say that or how many ways are left of getting this point across. The executive branch does not get to unilaterally pronounce the guilt of American citizens and sentence them to death.

Not unless we intend on burning the Constitution. Literally.

Not to interrupt james, but did you go to edit content? that pulls up everything you have, find the one you were working on it, click on it and bam...

LOL sorry man, just trying to help a brother out...lol...I found out how to do that when I was planning on leaving and deleted a bunch of my articles in the process hurting myself now that I stayed...lol

PWT.

Not really a contradiction at all. There will always be a few people who can figure out how to disappear, then have the drive to remain hidden. Your comment, however, implied that anybody can do so. That is simply not the case. They dont have the anonymity on their side, and it has definitely been proven over and over again, that people who try to disappear end up repeating past cycles or actually try to reconnect with their pre-gone into hiding lives. Illegals dont have that problem, since they are hiding from the moment they enter our country illegally, so that is their pattern. If they were to go back to their pre-illegal immigration pattern, they would also be leaving the country, and so problem solved.

BTW, nobody has anything to say about my solution to illegal immigration?

#8.52 ,

"According to U.S. officials" is not the legal standard of guilt in federal law or the Constitution. I don't know how many times I have to say that or how many ways are left of getting this point across. The executive branch does not get to unilaterally pronounce the guilt of American citizens and sentence them to death.

Fine . From that standard Osama bin Laden should also have been "brought to justice" . Yeah , he's not a US citizen but according to you that doesn't matter . Likewise for numerous Taliban located in Pakistan near the Afghan border .

how do you write an article on the vine and save it...and bring it up later...I wrote an article once...clicked save.......then went to publish it later...couldnt find where to restore it. Is it even an option???

james-1416766,

Since someone already answered that question, FWIW, I write everything in a word processor, and everything gets saved locally before it ever touches Newsvine. I suggest doing that instead of writing and editing on here or anywhere else. Too many things go wrong and things get lost.

* * *

Not really a contradiction at all.

Peter Faden,

You said the belief that any citizen can disappear is false, and in the very same sentence, admitted that some of them do. If that's not a contradiction, then what is?

Your comment, however, implied that anybody can do so.

Er, no. I said it flat out. And just because anyone can doesn't mean everyone will.

* * *

Fine . From that standard Osama bin Laden should also have been "brought to justice"

nonStitiousZealot,

No, because he's not a citizen. Congress authorized the killing of bin Laden in a pseudo declaration of war as the commander of an enemy army actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, subject to the laws of war. Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American citizen who has done none of those things.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American citizen who has done none of those things.

So... what if he's sitting in a house or a car full of known terrorists, and he becomes "collateral damage"?

PWT ,

Congress authorized the killing of bin Laden in a pseudo declaration of war as the commander of an enemy army actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, subject to the laws of war. Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American citizen who has done none of those things.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Al-Awlaki is almost certainly guilty of treason . He is aiding and abetting the enemy in this war on terrorism . It is rather easy to verify these claims by finding his youtube links and other websites . He has the option of coming to trial in the US but he chooses not to .

But to satisfy you he could be tried in abstentia , his websites and
youtube pronouncements could be used as evidence of treason .
Of course such a trial would take valuable time during which he would
go on influencing more to commit acts of terrorism .

But to satisfy you he could be tried in abstentia ,

No - to satisfy the Constitution. What is so @!$%#ing hard about that for you to understand? According to you, we can just declare that we don't like some American citizen somewhere and kill their ass without due process? Really?

OK - I hear you have been engaged in un-American activities. Someone should be able to place a cap in your ass, right?

Somebody certainly would with enough motivation, which Al-Awlaki readily provides. It's like arguing to protect a child rapist because he didnt receive a proper defense for the crimes he readily admits to committing. Sometimes, you just gotta go for it. I see no problem with it.

Trying to compare that with some random decision to off somebody randomly is a disingenuous means of debate. At least bring something real to the table. PWT and NSZ do, and it furthers the debate, while also making it interesting.

A question i think warrants asking is whether you really believe any country abstains from assassinations, regardless of their formal policy. Is that your belief RAC?

Oh bull@!$%#. You are advocating for the wild wild west from a due process perspective. PWT is right spot on. Al-Awlaki like it or not is a US citizen. As egregious as you feel his actions are, anything less than due process is a violation and desecration of the Constitution.

Go for it? Really? How @!$%#ing droll.

So because countries do not abstain in assassination makes it OK for the US to violate the Constitution? Really? Just how in the @!$%# does whether I believe countries performing assassinations have to do with the topic?

And you can take you condescending bull@!$%# comments about my examples and place them in the appropriate dark location.

Oh bull@!$%#. You are advocating for the wild wild west from a due process perspective. PWT is right spot on. Al-Awlaki like it or not is a US citizen. As egregious as you feel his actions are, anything less than due process is a violation and desecration of the Constitution.

Not really. When people refuse to face trial and either flee or refuse to appear, they are tried in absentia. However, as NSZ pointed out, that would really be a pointless exercise and waste of our (the taxpayer's) money, since the result is a given anyway. The preponderance of evidence against him is undeniable and completely incriminating. If you really think about it, he would never receive the fair trial you hope for, even with a jury of his "peers" (which wouldnt exist since his peers are also terrorists). Additionally, it is a simple matter to slap the Traitor" and/or enemy of the state tag on him, and it is also completely justified.

Go for it? Really? How @!$%#ing droll.

Elaborate. Why droll? I thought it a perfectly concise and poignant statement.

So because countries do not abstain in assassination makes it OK for the US to violate the Constitution? Really? Just how in the @!$%# does whether I believe countries performing assassinations have to do with the topic?

You really dont understand the question? Let me write it as a statement to help clarify for you a bit. The U.S. is just as willing as any other country to sponsor assassinations when the feeling of necessity is there. We just dont normally publicly advocate it. But, this is a special case. Did that help?

And you can take you condescending bull@!$%# comments about my examples and place them in the appropriate dark location.

I appreciate that advice. Normally, i would consider it, but i just ate burritos for dinner, and i suspect it would just end up coming right back out anyway. Unless you were thinking of another dark location...like a particularly gloomy mind, or perhaps the pocket of some dark trousers, maybe under a sofa cushion...hell, i dont know where all your dark locations are...perhaps you could include a map next time, or some diagrams?

So... what if he's sitting in a house or a car full of known terrorists, and he becomes "collateral damage"?

Sir Richard Owen,

I asked that very same question to Dam Abrams back when he had a one hour talker on MSNBC, but before he moved up to management. There was a situation during the Bush administration when the United States was firing drones on cars with suspected terrorists inside and other completely unknown occupants ranging from other unknown terrorists to innocents like domestic civilians, children, and even Americans.

He answered it on the air, but for the life of me I can't remember much more than that he said it wouldn't be a big deal. Or something along those lines.

I disagree for many reasons, but it's far from clear legally what the deal is. There have been plausible and credible arguments that all civilians killed accidentally by drones are war crimes, so you can imagine what those people think when the civilians are Americans. But that's a debate all unto itself that I have no hard answers for.

* * *

Al-Awlaki is almost certainly guilty of treason.

nonStitiousZealot,

Almost certain is not certain, and again, that doesn't even come close to meeting the legal standard for killing under the laws of war or the Constitution. And just because you're almost certain doesn't mean that everyone is, and it doesn't even preclude being wrong.

He is aiding and abetting the enemy in this war on terrorism

According to you. You're not God, a judge, jury, or anyone else that can make that determination subject to ending his life without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. You don't know that for a fact and even if you did, it has to be proven in a court of law. That's how our system works.

He has the option of coming to trial in the US but he chooses not to.

That's a nonsensical statement since Al-Awlaki hasn't even been charged with a crime yet. It's like saying I have the option of going to Germany for a trial, which wouldn't happen since I've not been charged with a crime either.

But to satisfy you he could be tried in abstentia

Courts in the United States have ruled that such trials are blatantly unconstitutional for nearly 130 years. Doing so violates the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments. It's also codified in Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. There are exceptions (being present for the beginning of a trial and then fleeing for example), but none of them apply to Anwar Al-Awlaki.

his websites and youtube pronouncements could be used as evidence of treason .

Doubtful. First of all, treason is not actually a crime in and of itself. Certain crimes can be treason, but treason is little more than being disloyal or subversive. I could argue that my government is corrupt, should be overthrown, and all persons running it should be tortured and then executed. That would be a treasonous statement, but it is not a crime. (If it were, I could name more than a few Tea Party members that should be charged right now for statements they've made since 2009 about certain "second amendment remedies".) The last time the United States tried to make a type of treason a crime – sedition – it was eventually struck down by the courts.

Second, anything Al-Awlaki says on YouTube is protected by the first amendment including inciting rebellion, war, and terrorism. That has been the case for over thirty years when the Supreme Court ruled that only speech inciting imminent lawless action can escape first amendment protection, in Brandenberg v Ohio<.a>. As objectionable and reprehensible as it may be, any citizen can say the things that Al-Awlaki says without reprisal from the government.

Some things like raising funds for terrorist groups would be a crime, but any speech on the website would also be fully protected.

Of course such a trial would take valuable time during which he would go on influencing more to commit acts of terrorism .

Yeah yeah, people said that about trying KSM in a civilian court in New York too. But it never happens. The United States has given civilian trials to something like 100 foreign terrorists over the years and nothing ever happened other than those people going to prison for the rest of their lives. And it owes even more to citizens, many of whom are far worse than Al-Awlaki is. We've given trials to mass murderers, foreign soldiers, former Nazis and other war criminals, drug cartel kingpins, and nothing ever happened.

If we can put cartel leaders on trial, we can put an American citizen on trial that's been charged with no crimes and accused of nothing more than saying things that the state disapproves of.

* * *

It's like arguing to protect a child rapist because he didnt receive a proper defense for the crimes he readily admits to committing.

Peter Faden,

I'm not sure that's a very good rhetorical example. Admitting guilt – pleading guilty – usually means forfeiting your right to appeal the sentence no matter what.

Not really. When people refuse to face trial and either flee or refuse to appear, they are tried in absentia.

Depends on when they run. If they run after the trial begins, the trial may continue without their presence. But not if they aren't around in the first place. Not in the United States anyway.

If you really think about it, he would never receive the fair trial you hope for, even with a jury of his "peers"

O. J. Simpson and Casey Anthony did. I guarantee you more people were certain of their guilt than is the case with Anwar Al-Awlaki.

It's like arguing to protect a child rapist because he didnt receive a proper defense for the crimes he readily admits to committing.

I'd also like to clarify something. I'm not protecting Anwar Al-Awlaki. Some intimation that I am, or the generic intimation that doing X is trying to protect a sex offender/terrorist, is just a distraction that people use to ramp up emotions and shut down debate. That may not have been your intent Peter and I don't think it was, but I'm pointing this out to keep it from becoming an issue.

I don't like Al-Awlaki any more or less than you guys do, and I'm not protecting him. I'm protecting the justice system, the Constitution, and *my rights*. If I turn a blind eye towards people ignoring America's core values and the Constitution just because I don't happen to like the guy the government is trying to kill today, then I'll have no right to object when the government ignores the law when it tries to kill you and me tomorrow.

Remember this famous verse from Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I don't particularly care who the person is in question, the issue is the government ignoring our highest laws just because it wants to. If we allow that precedent to be established and to flourish, then those very laws will lose all of their meaning and power and will simply cease to exist in spirit, and eventually in practice as well.

I want Anwar Al-Awlaki to get a trial because I want a trial if the government ever decides that I'm a traitor or terrorist.

I want Anwar Al-Awlaki to have due process because I want due process.

I want Anwar Al-Awlaki to be able to call for the overthrow of the American government today so that I can call for it tomorrow.

And so should all of you. Because one day, if you let our government go down this road, they will eventually come for you too.

PWT ,

treason is little more than being disloyal or subversive

I don't think that is the correct concept . If I'm not mistaken it involves acts that aid & abet the enemy in times of war .

In the case of Al-Awlaki his violations appear to go well beyond just aid & support since he has been implicated in planning acts of terrorism that have been carried out .

As to 1st amendment rights there have been historical precedents that restrict some speech . The Smith Act for example prohibited speech that advocated the violent overthrow of the US government .

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/dennis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

There is one more thing that to consider that you seem to be ignoring .
Although there is a war on terrorism being conducted it is not a war in the ordinary sense of the word . The enemy does not wear uniforms nor does it engage the US military forces in battle [for the most part] . Because of those differences there have been some relaxations of the standard constitutional rights in order to deal effectively with this enemy . Strange times cause strange policies .

he said it wouldn't be a big deal.

He was probably right. There wasn't much of a stink raised over Ahmed Hijazi. And it seems they're trying to get al-Awlaki, too, but they missed. Of course, the DoD is going to refuse to comment on anything.

In the case of Al-Awlaki his violations appear to go well beyond just aid & support since he has been implicated in planning acts of terrorism that have been carried out .

nonStitiousZealot,

Would appear. Seems like. Almost certain. Implicated.

What's missing? Proof.

Under your standard I could accuse you of being a terrorist that's giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and then unilaterally murder you.

As to 1st amendment rights there have been historical precedents that restrict some speech . The Smith Act for example prohibited speech that advocated the violent overthrow of the US government .

Most convictions under that law were overturned as unconstitutional. Who was the Smith Act used against? Terrorists? Communists? Foreigners? Enemies of the state?

No, it was used against Americans to put Americans in prison for daring to criticize their own supposedly democratic government. You've just demonstrated one of the greatest dangers in turning a blind eye to the Constitution and in the process, made my argument for me.

Because of those differences there have been some relaxations of the standard constitutional rights in order to deal effectively with this enemy

There have been arguments by the Bush administration that this should happen, but that has not happened in practice.

PWT

I get that you arent trying to protect the person so much as the perceived sanctity of the system. I say perceived because things change, and the way we deal with things needs to have the flexibility to deal with new situations as they arise. Perhaps in this case, a ratification or amendment would be in order. I do know that obstinate legality issues are just as damaging as flying by the seat of your (ambiguous, not YOU) pants and ignoring the laws of the land. But, i also know you cant have things both ways, and so in a sense, we are all wrong. Here, the topics of terrorism and illegal immigration have both come up. Each of us is opposed to the enforcement of one and ignoring the laws with the other...and so in a sense, we are all at fault even as we really, truly represent the mind of all Americans.

So, amending the laws, or at least considering it would most likely be the proper path in both cases. The problem is that we really cant afford to wait. This is often the case though, and so what happens is we have an act or action, such as assassinating somebody or deporting somebody, and then the courts determine the legality of it later. That is not such an uncommon method for handling things in this country. Often, people suffer for it, but that is really par for the course in all ways.

Perhaps in this case, a ratification or amendment would be in order.

Peter Faden,

To what end?

Each of us is opposed to the enforcement of one and ignoring the laws with the other...

Speaking only for myself, I am not opposed to the enforcement of any law and do not support ignoring any of them. I fully support the enforcement of immigration statutes, and even things as rancid and unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act. I want the former reformed and the latter repealed, but they are the books so they need to be enforced so long as we're a nation of laws, and not men.

There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with these things, and ignoring the law is the wrong way.

I'm not trying to put myself up on a pedestal here, but I don't see myself at fault here in this context. I believe my arguments and beliefs are intellectually honest and consistent in this regard.

The problem is that we really cant afford to wait.

Of course we can, some people would just rather not. The country and existence itself is not going to end just because a scumbag like Al-Awlaki isn't killed or apprehended and is allowed to do bad things in the world. However, if we start ignoring our highest laws and most important core principles just to "get him", then the country may very well cease to exist as we know it at some point. Because once you go down that road and say that the Constitution doesn't apply to citizen X because of Y, then it's a short distance to saying that it doesn't apply to citizen A, B, C, D, and E because of whatever happens to be the thing of the day.

And there's always a thing of the day.

I'm sure a lot of people honestly and earnestly argued that the Constitution shouldn't protect American communists, or even accused American communists who turned out later to be nothing of the kind. And they too said we can't really afford to wait. They too used fear to undermine our system of democracy. If anything, it's the willingness to throw away the Constitution when its protections are too inconvenient that poses the most persistent and serious threat to this country. Not idiots like Al-Awlaki. Not even all of al Qaeda.

bin Laden killed 3,000 people, but no outside force (short of one capable of invasion and occupation) can ever taken away our freedom. Only we can do that to ourselves, and all too often there are plenty enough people around pissing their pants over the latest Big Bad to do just that.

I would be willing to bet that if bin Laden were still alive and you could convince him to have a candid and honest conversation, and you asked him which he was more proud of, the 3,000 Americans he killed, or the new state of constant fear he inspired and the increasing number of rights we're all asked to sacrifice – rights he could never take away himself, not directly – he'd say the latter. And I've made that argument for years now.

Death isn't the point of terrorism, it's fear. And the terrible things that people will do to themselves and to others when they are scared enough. We're example A of that. Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Yemen. Somalia. The TSA. Illegal warrantless spying. Indefinite detentions. Torture. Assassinations of our own citizens.

We've done more horror in the world that bin Laden could ever have dreamed of doing himself, and this support for murdering Al-Awlaki is simply the latest in a long line of shameful things we're doing because we're so willing and happy to let people like that manipulate us into becoming them, and worse.

Well I'm not playing ball. I would rather die free than live in a country that would kill its own citizens like this.

People used to understand that, but I guess this generation isn't quite up to the standards set by the founders.

PWT ,

People used to understand that, but I guess this generation isn't quite up to the standards set by the founders.

You seem to be stuck in pre-Civil War thinking :

Fine . So go ahead and impeach Abraham Lincoln [posthumously , of course ] for suspending the writ of habeas corpus .

nonStitiousZealot,

I don't see the point in such rhetoric, but I would note that Lincoln was rebuffed by the courts and he ignored a lawful court order to stop. He should have been impeached for that.

Sheesh-- don't youse guys realize that this conversation has been over for days now? No one is participating any more!

kinda reminds me of a remark by Yogi Berra:

The place has gotten so crowded that no one goes there anymore.

Old catcher quotes are always appreciated, even if they were from ex-Yankees. :)

Peter, your NV presence is a joy! We've missed you too much - hope all is well!:D

She didn't matter when she was here, she doesn't matter now that she's gone. Nobody matters.

Jack, that's almost poetic. It speaks to the impermanence of fame, infamy and life itself.

Been drinking? :)

Wheel:

On a school night? Nope.

I'm saving up for the dog days.

Sorry, I just thought I detected a somewhat morose tone I don't see often in your posts. It's a tone I sometimes associate with 'men in their cups.'

Which also, btw, applies to all that crap about things being more civil, too.

It's true. I've seen it on my own content. Read the comments on any of my stories out of the last 5-10 and you'll see something on Newsvine that you wouldn't see a few months ago. Not in those numbers. I've written nearly 400 stories here since joining in 2006 and I remember the good times, the bad times, and recently in the past few months, I've seen a move back toward the better. It's quantifiable.

Wheel:

I'm in a pretty good mood, actually.

Although if you take my meta comment and apply it to the human condition, I suppose it does sound pretty morose.

I think it's the combination of the long, compound sentence followed by the punch of the 2 word sentence. Short sentences can really pack a punch.

"Jesus wept"

"Molon labe"

It speaks to the impermanence of fame, infamy and life itself.

Ah yes!

Contemplating the departure of ole Driftie 'oft brings to mind thoughts such as these...

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more.

Alas...

I think it's the combination of the long, compound sentence followed by the punch of the 2 word sentence

It might be Iambic Pentameter..or Haiku...I'm not sure which.

(Then again, it might just be Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian...or maybe even merely the effect of a few cold beers?)

Never-the-less, the passing of "Driftie" (as she is affectionately known to her friends and admirers) is something that will live forever in the hearts and minds of her county-persons....

Contemplating the departure of ole Driftie 'oft brings to mind thoughts such as these...

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more.

Alas...

More like:

"So quick, bright things come to confusion."

or:

"Lord, what fools these mortals be."

Getting rid of Driftwood was not tragedy. Comedy fits better.

it was written 7 months ago. It's had it's play on NV. Why a person would want to dredge it up again is beyond me. Let it rest...K?

No Problem Pat N...just asking...Sheesh I did not see this.

Been there and done that...meaning look at the date. We, viners have already seen it. It was explained by Tyler himself. Soph did not have two accounts at one time, otherwise she would have been banned just like anyone else.

Nice try by the new stalkers gang though.

a news site offering opinions on bloggers on another news site.... NewStalkers is an appropriate name.

(sigh)....

Here we go again. The neener-neeners at other groups. As a member of said group, I can tell you that the Vine rarely...if ever gets mentioned since that article and that those of you making wild presumptions about membership would be shocked if you knew some of the liberals who were members.

A few of them are on your friendslist, Darrah. I'll be sure to pass along that you think so little of them.

So much for "live and let live".

It's really kinda sad that people have to dig up ancient history, in order to have something petty to attack.

It's really kinda sad that people have to dig up ancient history, in order to have something petty to attack.

James is the only one dredging up ancient history Pat N. No one begged him to write his article. An as for the other groups that cannot resist naming themselves as close to the Newsvine label as possible well it says a whole lot.

I really do apologize...It was a stupid mistake

What's this ?...

http://www.thenewstalkers.com/message/12399

Soph0571 had TWO Newsvine accounts...

Oy

FYI , NewsTalkers is not about commenting on Viners . There was a period last year where that happened some but the group grew out of it . Driftwood joined up too IIRC but has either left or just been inactive .

Oy

I see your Oy and raise it! LOL.

FYI , NewsTalkers is not about commenting on Viners

Correct. There was a time when two certain banned Viners...one that attacked Darrah...were in the group. Both were unstable, IMO. They left the group months ago and started their own little "bash the Vine" group which has since gone belly up.

But apparently some people just can't let go of the past and need something to bitch about...whether what their bitching about is true or not.

ettenna - It's not you're fault. I think your query was innocent enough and I'm sorry I snapped at you. But the rest of you? Grow up. Things aren't as you think (wish??) they are and there is nothing in NT for you to complain about.

Correct. There was a time when two certain banned Viners...one that attacked Darrah...were in the group. Both were unstable, IMO. They left the group months ago and started their own little "bash the Vine" group which has since gone belly up.

So you just felt the need to single me out yourself in #10.5? I take it you're not banned considering that you're still here. ;-)

And you just singled me out again in 10.12.

I ask you, who needs to grow up?

If I understand this right, is Paul William Tenney and Soph the same person?

Paul William Tenney and Soph the same person?

LOL ssssshhhhh - don;t tell anyone!

And you just singled me out again in 10.12.

Gee. Maybe because YOU are the one that felt compelled to launch the first, knee-jerk, juvenile attack against NT after ettenna's innocent inquiry and in a thread that has nothing to do with NT?

Just a thought.

Been there and done that...meaning look at the date. We, viners have already seen it. It was explained by Tyler himself. Soph did not have two accounts at one time, otherwise she would have been banned just like anyone else.

So this is supposed to be a

Gee. Maybe because YOU are the one that felt compelled to launch the first, knee-jerk, juvenile attack against NT after ettenna's innocent inquiry and in a thread that has nothing to do with NT?

It doesn't look that way to me. Darrah simply made a statement about what is going on. I would think a vicious attack on someone from another site would raise concerns even though now it is pristine and pure.

You seem to have conveniently over looked:

"Nice try by the new stalkers gang though...."

...in that post, js. What a cute little barb. Lets turn 'News Talkers' into 'New Stalkers'! Titter, titter. Tee-hee!

Look. I've said my piece about it. I think it's juvenile...as well as catty...to be dredging up apparently long held resentments against a group that doesn't have the same member make up as it did when that article was written, isn't even moderated by the same person and rarely...if ever..mentions Newsvine. I mean how dare there be a new outlet for Foto-Friday! The shame of it! How dare there be former and CURRENT viners that post elsewhere! The shame of it!

If some people want to maintain their illusion of the group based on historical events that have been played out already and keep the chaos going that's their perogative. But it's also the very same thing YOU have been railing against in this article and a recent one by SRO, js.

Pat:

Bravo!

I don't resent any of the off shoots of Newsvine if you want to know how I feel. I am friends with many on both of the active sites and do appreciate their endeavor to keep Newsvine trashing off of them. However there was a lot of activity in this vain when the sites were first started.

I would suggest Pat N that you give it up and stop dredging. Your remarks to Darrah weren't dredging up the past? So let's make the past ashes. You stop making fun of others and we'll stop making fun of the off shoots and the snarky remarks made toward NV members and their preference of groups.

Look. I've said my piece about it. I think it's juvenile...as well as catty...to be dredging up apparently long held resentments against a group that doesn't have the same member make up as it did when that article was written, isn't even moderated by the same person and rarely...if ever..mentions Newsvine. I mean how dare there be a new outlet for Foto-Friday! The shame of it! How dare there be former and CURRENT viners that post elsewhere! The shame of it!

Pat:

Bravo!

Thanks wmolaw. Drives me nuts when people pretend to be an authority on events they know nothing about!

You know what drives me nuts? When people post comments like #10.19. Newsvine doesn't need a cheerleading section. If you agree with something but don't have anything original or insightful to say yourself, ... click the little up arrow and move on.

Comments like that are just embarrassing.

Comments like that are just embarrassing.

Be prepared for more of the same then . Pat , well done !

Be prepared for more of the same then . Pat , well done !

LOL! Thanks, nsz!

Wonder why I've never seen PWT complain about that when it's a left winger getting the kudos? Hmmm. Must just be a new pet peeve of his. Certainly it wouldn'thave anything to do with partisanship...would it?

Ah, PWT must have had a tough day!

Then again, if that's all he has to bitch about, I would say we're doing pretty well! LOL

Okay, I got

damn,

bitch,

hell,

can post. What other worthwhile words can I post without having the censor kick in?

Wonder why I've never seen PWT complain about that when it's a left winger getting the kudos? Hmmm. Must just be a new pet peeve of his. Certainly it wouldn'thave anything to do with partisanship...would it?

There's nothing wrong with complimenting a friend's post. It's doing it in two or three words without adding anything to the conversation that's lame. If you want to compliment a comment, vote for it. That's what it's there for. FR the person. But don't embarrass yourself by cheering like a little sycophant and don't interrupt a conversation just to toot a horn.

You people are adults.

Try acting like it.

PWT:

I tell you, you post the way you wish, and I will post the way I wish.

You may be verbose, I ain't. Simple as that.

It's doing it in two or three words without adding anything to the conversation that's lame.

OK then , here are more than 3 words :

I mean how dare there be a new outlet for Foto-Friday! The shame of it! How dare there be former and CURRENT viners that post elsewhere! The shame of it!

Some viners seem to feel that getting banned from the vine is like getting excommunicated . But it's not . There is a whole universe of other blogs out there, not to mention real life !

My advice to viners : don't be afraid to explore other possibilities .

Non:

Got that right.

Correct. There was a time when two certain banned Viners...one that attacked Darrah...were in the group. Both were unstable, IMO. They left the group months ago and started their own little "bash the Vine" group which has since gone belly up.

Pat N....

What group was that... and who?

Does it matter DW? Since I know you are already aware of the "where" and the "who", I find it just a tad disingenuous that you want me to start flinging names around and make this even more combative than it already was.

Things are beginning to settle down in this thread. I intend to keep in that way. I'm afraid you showd up just an hour or so too late.

Things are beginning to settle down in this thread. I intend to keep in that way. I'm afraid you showd up just an hour or so too late.

I'm with Pat on this one.

Lol...so much anger and disillusionment. It is true that the people responsible for the embarrassment of an article about Soph are long gone from the NewsTalkers. Actually, that was the point where those of us who wanted to craft a friendly environment identified the things we liked about the various social news sites and the things we didnt. That shaped the site as it is now. I personally dont miss those ex-members at all. As an interesting side note, they happened to be the one's who were banned from here. Funny how that works aye? Possibly, there might be some substance to the bannings after all.

However, the majority of membership over there also maintain memberships here. For me, it's an opportunity to stay connected with old friends who are most comfortable here, and occasionally throw a thought or two into the occasional conversation or debate.

What i would like to see is an end to the cross site hostility. There really is no longer any real reason for it.

As far as this article itself, i really had no interaction with Driftwood here. I have spoken to her briefly elsewhere and had no problem with her. However, i also am ambivalent to the whole right vs left thing, aside from how it impedes any real social progress. Did Driftwood's banning have any effect on Newsvine overall. Probably. If she was a combative columnist, then her absence would certainly create a void in that regard....at least until the next, more right leaning, polarizing poster begins to gain traction. Then....repeat cycle. Since this site has a higher percentage of left leaning views, it is inevitable that a few very vocal righties WILL gain traction, and the anger will ensue. That is always the case with opposites, especially regarding discussions in the political/religious/social realm.

I do know that righties arent alone in bannings/suspensions. RDon was banned, AMac was suspended....to give a couple examples.

Anyway, done with my rant for now.

Peace. :)

Comments like that are just embarrassing.

Be prepared for more of the same then . Pat , well done !

{giggle}

Meta articles can be so amusing.:-]

Holy cow. Hell hath indeed frozen over. I don't think I've ever seen Krishna "giggle" before. Chuckle? Sure. Guffaw? Rarely. Laugh heartily? Yep.

But "giggle"? Whew. lol.

damn! who died and made pwt God?

Does it matter DW? Since I know you are already aware of the "where" and the "who", I find it just a tad disingenuous that you want me to start flinging names around and make this even more combative than it already was.

Things are beginning to settle down in this thread. I intend to keep in that way. I'm afraid you showd up just an hour or so too late.

LMAO... Pat...

If you want to hide behind inuendo... just say it.... Woman up and say it...

"late" This was seeded on July 12th.

But I already know. You show yourself for who you are by dropping the inuendo and running from it.

You forgot to put "neener-neener" after your post, DW.

?????? I was not being childish, but serious. But go ahead and continue to run from your inuendo.

You sure that's enough "?"s ?

What group was that... and who?

what a stupid question. you know damn well who.

You sure that's enough "?"s ?

i think all those "?" were supposed to be a crescendo for the inuendo..?

(Or was it actually a minuet?)

the "?????"

was a response to her "neener neener".... seriously that is her response.

She says I suffer from showing up late... well this was seeded just this last weekend. Newsvine does not deal in a 24 hour discussion. .... Hell NewsTalkers doesn't either.

Yes I know who, now, but she wants to be coy. Well I don't,.

Say what you mean. Have the courage to stand up to your words.

You want to call Dkaz or Relentless Comedy unstable .... Woman up and do so.

But I warn you, it will bite you in the ass. When you act coy... you only keep the few on her in your click in on the joke... the rest don't see what your game is.

DragonWoman the game is obvious and so are the continual insults. Why anyone thinks setting others up is acting intelligent I will never know. Getting snarky when the game is called is amusing however as it is followed by more silly insults and superficial blather. Hang in there DragonWoman.

I will say that they are definitely unstable without reservation or hesitation. Malicious would actually be a better description however. Simply a proven track record with those two. Both revel in manipulation and mischaracterizations, and both suffer from megalomaniacal tendencies, or at least that is how they present themselves. Dana was more of a surprise to me than Michael Thomas, who i know quite well.

That being said, it is no indictment on your friendship with them DW. Personally, i have never had any problem with you.

I was a member of both NewsTalkers and S & B, I was invited to join (both). I have, and continue to, get along with most everyone. I've never had ANY infraction here on Newsvine, or the other mentioned sites. That being said...when the bickering on those sites started, there were those of us caught in the middle, (kinda like, "Torn Between Two Loverssssssssssss, feelin like a fool), it got REAL ugly. IMO. I had ALL of my accounts removed, NV, NT, (S&B ran it's own course.) I have since returned to NV. My hope is that we can all just get along?? Peter good to see you again, always enjoyed your articles and your responses. DW nice to see you also!

I will now proceed to my corner, snap my gum and twirl my hair and wait patiently for responses!

I believe self-monitoring is the best move any of us can do in forum communication. There are many that aren't quite up to understanding the basics of discourse and some believe the full frontal attack is expected or so it looks at times. When we get each others backs in the event of a abusive member that person either chills and tones it down or leaves. I am very impressed with the majority of NV members and those of News Talkers and After the Vine as they started out on very rocky ground and now it looks as if they are growing a lovely green space.

Great to see you also felicity. It's good to see you are back online here.

I am not torn at all. I will say it again. People show who they are. Dana and Micheal are no longer around bickering over old @!$%#. They moved on with life..... period. They are not consumed with this petty @!$%#.......

Period.

There are people on here who like back when S&B was around would lurk and not say anything there, but take it back to their little corners and bicker about it.

AND I NEVER SAID ANYTHING when the bickering went on... I avoided it.

BUT when people who are not QUALIFIED to give a mental evaluation of someone, and in so demean those who do have mental issues.... it pisses me off. It also says more about the people who say it than whom they are talking about. I have more respect for Dana and Micheal then I do for the two on here who have decided to tare people apart who can not be here to defend themselves. It is pathetic and sad.

Speaking of lurking.... if that "hair" article is sooooooo terrible... then why is it still getting traffic... No comments... just lurking??????

Dr. Faden and Dr. Pat N.... what does it say about a person's mental stability to lurk and not have the balls to speak up?

Whatever happened with S&B ? Is it still around ?

Cant speak to lurking DW. It wasnt something i ever did. It does sound like you are personalizing the topic a bit. Did you involve yourself in the drama? I honestly dont know. I cant remember anybody specifically stating that you did. You did have the dubious benefit of being on both sites though, and while you visited articles on NT frequently, you only really posted on SnB at the time. Would that not qualify as lurking? Since we all share PHd's in lurking allegedly, i'm wondering where you weigh in on that.

I do know you have spoken in defense of RC and Dkaz, even when they were at their most pathetic. I also know from what multiple people have asserted, that SnB was having a field day slamming quite a few people, myself included. Now, that doesn't surprise me given RC's lingering feeling of defeat and anger towards me, but as i said above, i really had no problem with you at all. However, your tone suggests you have a problem with me, which is fine, but most definitely unwarranted.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so angry. It really lightens the load on the soul. :)

Micheal decided to close SnB... Why, is not fully clear. He and Dana discussed it. Dana explained some of it to me. None of it had to do with a power struggle. He wanted a site that was fun...

Faden.... Pathetic is lurking and not speaking or coming to terms with the subject.

Taking things personally.... well if you notice I am not really following the topic as much as the discussion about a site and people who are not here to defend themselves. It should not be any surprise to anyone here, as I have had to do that before on Newsvine.

I am not all to familiar with Driftwood... why another NV blogger is gone is not a surprise to me. There is a trend here.... OK... I am not getting all hot under the collar yet again in another fruitless battle.

There is more than NV and NT.

As for my tenure on Newstalkers.... I pop on every now and then. I want to get back into photography, but have been spread thin at home. I have the utmost respect for A.Mac.

You want to read something into why "did not speak on NT" I can not answer a falsehood. I did speak on Newstakers... even during the spats between Dana and Perrie. I told Dana... I am not taking sides.... She had NO PROBLEM with that. She has a problem with dishonesty and betrayal. So do I.....

If I did not go on EVERYONES articles on Newstalkers... maybe it is because their subject did not intrest me or qualify as something I wanted to spend the little free time I have... and I had 4 blogging sites I was on.

The loss of SnB was sad... but I have too much going on to cry over it.... can all the people on Newstalkers who have rallied like it is some kind of contest say the same thing?

Can they?

If it was gone tomorrow, could they move on?

I think that is a question members should answer before criticising those who decided to find something else to do.

I have a personal life. At the moment I have a friend who I made on here about to be a grandmother for the first time and her daughter is quite early... her son in law is in the war over seas.... another friend with an at risk pregnancy due any time now...

I could give two @!$%#s about people who want to be petty.... over a blogging community.

Just don't think while you build the EMPIRE (LMAO)... that you lose site that it is a blogging community made up of multiple personalities. A clique has been formed on NT as much as there is one on here....

There will be fall out due to that.

Saying you dont care is clearly disingenuous. You obviously care quite a bit about the topic, and it clearly weighs heavily on you. You dont miss the opportunity to speak on this topic, so....in fact, that is why i weighed in here. I've seen it quite a bit now from you. Which is fine really, since you have connected yourself to it. Just dont pretend you haven't been a lurker, because you definitely have...and as such, dont pretend that you are somehow morally superior. That would also clearly be disingenuous. You are right in the mix, through your own desire to be there.

Even when it isnt tied to this topic, you have a tendency to almost demand that people dont discuss topics that you dont agree with. An example would be Weiner. You were "angry" as i recall and wrote an article where you said this shouldnt be discussed. I am unclear as to when you became the deciding factor on the what is and what isnt appropriate to discuss, but i certainly would never adhere to your stringent outlook (but then again, you dont either, so there is some parity there). Outrage seems to be your major contribution to any discussion from what i have seen lately. Which is really too bad, since i have seen some good work from you in the past. Your top ten lists were interesting, and who doesnt like photos? So, it comes back to personalizing. I understand. Everybody personalizes to an extent. Most people just admit it.

As far as our mutual friend who is looking forward to being a first time grandmother, that is quite exciting even with the trepidation of the premature birth. I am confident her granddaughter will be a healthy baby.

<p>She had NO PROBLEM with that. She has a problem with dishonesty and betrayal. So do I.....

She had no problem with dishonesty and betrayal, being well invested in both activities. How did you manage to say that with a straight face? I am seriously impressed.

You really suck at figuring people out Peter.

Even when it isnt tied to this topic, you have a tendency to almost demand that people dont discuss topics that you dont agree with. An example would be Weiner. You were "angry" as i recall and wrote an article where you said this shouldnt be discussed.

There were many topics on Newsvine, NewsTalkers, and even SnB that I did not care about or disagreed with. I did not care if people discussed them.

you have a tendency to almost demand that people dont

You take the title of one article and a few sentences from it and decide that you are going to sum me up by that.

Well you are wrong.

Saying you dont care is clearly disingenuous. You obviously care quite a bit about the topic

Again... wrong... what is the topic of this article???? Not Dana, Not Micheal, Not SnB.... no it is about Driftwood.

Which is fine really, since you have connected yourself to it. Just dont pretend you haven't been a lurker, because you definitely have...and as such, dont pretend that you are somehow morally superior. That would also clearly be disingenuous.

Would you like me to define lurking for you Peter?

Lurking is more of a habit... used to gather information from one blogging area and then take it to another forum. You are not there to join the discussion. I have opened a topic and left without a comment, because I had nothing to say. I did not infiltrate a topic, read all the commentary and then open up another discussion elsewhere, just to have a pow wow with other lurkers in the same damn clique. And this is done by people who call themselves adults and sit in judgement of others. You want to defend that Peter.. Go ahead. I am done with it.

As far as our mutual friend who is looking forward to being a first time grandmother, that is quite exciting even with the trepidation of the premature birth. I am confident her granddaughter will be a healthy baby.

Here is where we agree.... I am hoping things are good for mom and child. I think she is under 28 weeks.

She had no problem with dishonesty and betrayal, being well invested in both activities. How did you manage to say that with a straight face? I am seriously impressed.

Did she betray you? Or is this something you heard 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand? Look I am not going to argue this point with you any longer. I really think you are going to have to learn this the hard way.

I will not let anyone belittle someone's emotional stability around me. Not even the people I am most disappointed in, whom are involved with this.

I am actually very good at analyzing a person's tendencies. I dont really expect you to accept that. Most people arent capable of receiving what they perceive as negative views of their own tendencies. That is okay. Your overall attitude demonstrates the validity of my own statements. You said before that you needed to respond to Pat here to "defend" Dana and Michael Thomas, and that you really didnt care about the actual article itself. What does that say about your intentions? Isnt it hypocritical to use the off topic cries when your sole intention here was to be off topic? At least i have actually weighed in on the topic of this article on multiple threads here. What have you done except continue this one off topic thread?

Now, i asked you what you thought of lurking after you accused me of doing so. Where would you have gotten that notion? Not from any of my own posts. Not from anybody else whom i interact with. What were your sources? It would be irresponsible to just throw around baseless allegations. Now, the definition of lurking online is watching without commenting. You actually stated that well yourself earlier, but then said that you dont lurk, you simply read and choose whether to respond or not. That is lurking. That doesn't mean it is nefarious, but you do seem a bit defensive over that. I guess that's natural. Nobody wants to be perceived as having questionable motivation or intentions. Which is funny, because you went on the attack earlier even though i had not directed anything at you personally. In fact, i said that i never had any problems with you. Curious. I guess that anger and self righteousness you have exhibited has decided to rear its ugly head.

I will not let anyone belittle someone's emotional stability around me. Not even the people I am most disappointed in, whom are involved with this

You have no problem doing so, but you WILL NOT LET anybody else do so. Nice. I guess those rules only apply to OTHER PEOPLE. Again, i am curious how would even deem yourself the moral authority on these matters.
Plus, the mental instability of those two is well documented...even by them personally. It is no secret whatsoever...and it wouldnt be a problem if it wasnt used against others with such regularity.

Did she betray you? Or is this something you heard 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand? Look I am not going to argue this point with you any longer. I really think you are going to have to learn this the hard way.

The hard way, ay? That is quaint. As a rule, that is a statement used when a person either doesnt really know the topic at hand, or cant really think of an actual response. I can almost hear a fuming, sputtering voice uttering those words. You know, the "You'll live to regret this" rant of the super villain after they are foiled again.
Although Dana did actually betray what was allegedly a friendship, it was really the way she treated many others, which i observed directly even before the rift, that demonstrated her ability and willingness to betray trust. Her dishonesty was riding shotgun next to that. Then again, they really are shot out of the same barrel.

Now, i asked you what you thought of lurking after you accused me of doing so. Where would you have gotten that notion? Not from any of my own posts. Not from anybody else whom i interact with. What were your sources? It would be irresponsible to just throw around baseless allegations.

Oh good grief Peter... where did I accuse you of lurking...

I said some people on here. And my source???? I was on SnB... and I saw where people showed up to the party, but did not speak... several times... You want me to prove it? Come on now... you know good and well the site is gone...

You said before that you needed to respond to Pat here to "defend" Dana and Michael Thomas, and that you really didnt care about the actual article itself. What does that say about your intentions?

I am loyal to people who deserve my loyalty. I don't call someone mentally unstable when they are not here to defend themselves ... AND CAN'T BE.

What does it say about people who talk about people's mental stability when they know good and damn well they can not be here to defend themselves?

Isnt it hypocritical to use the off topic cries when your sole intention here was to be off topic? At least i have actually weighed in on the topic of this article on multiple threads here. What have you done except continue this one off topic thread?

Who was crying about being off topic... I admitted it. I only came here after being told about it by a friend on Facebook.

Truthfully I was reading much of the stuff above and like I said before... did not feel like banging my head again on the whole... Why is this person banned?

And honey... it takes two to tango... and you are helping to continue this dance... partner.

You have no problem doing so, but you WILL NOT LET anybody else do so

Where did I belittle someone's mental stability? Where is your proof? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman does not count... LMAO

I can almost hear a fuming, sputtering voice uttering those words. You know, the "You'll live to regret this" rant of the super villain after they are foiled again.

eeeeeehhhhhhhtttttt.... eeeeeerrrrrrr

(maybe I need a giant gong)..... but wrong again... I am actually laughing at you.

Talk about someone full of them-self. You really are bad at reading me.

Although Dana did actually betray what was allegedly a friendship, it was really the way she treated many others, which i observed directly even before the rift, that demonstrated her ability and willingness to betray trust. Her dishonesty was riding shotgun next to that. Then again, they really are shot out of the same barrel.

Again innuendo... sort of the all talk no action... Where is the proof????

Given yer bang up job of assessing me... I think I know where it lies

Oh... but go ahead and continue to give your best shot of discribing how I am acting while typing this out?

What I said about "you have to learn the hard way" has nothing to do with "oh yer gonna get it". I speak from experience. When it is your time around... you will know. Just remember.

Told ya so.......... :P

Well, they arent exactly here to defend themselves, are they? I mean, we are feeling a bit self righteous....gotta stay true to how you would have others act. I do admit though, i have been enjoying this exchange. You asked for people to step up, and i am certainly one for accepting challenges. That being said, i believe your comment about lurking was as follows,

Dr. Faden and Dr. Pat N.... what does it say about a person's mental stability to lurk and not have the balls to speak up?

Now, in truth, sometimes after swimming in a cold pool, it might seem that i am, ummm, lacking, but hey, that is my cross to bear. Pretty sure Pat is sadly without as well.

To be quite honest though, all talk of RC and Dana aside, i was really just curious how deeply involved you felt, so i walked you down a path just to be certain. You did not disappoint.

Oh, you also asked when i saw you belittle somebodies mental illness.Two things come from that question....first, i didnt specify how you belittled somebody, only that you have (in this thread in fact), and second, you acknowledge the mental illnesses the two you defend suffer from. Otherwise, there would be no need to specify.

Still, i really have no grudge against you. I do know you are not well informed on this particular topic, and really dont hold it against you. You have simply accepted with blind faith a certain position, regardless of its inherently false nature, and so you have no choice, i guess, but to stand up for people who ultimately wont appreciate your efforts outside of the vicarious pleasure they take from it.

Told you so? You say it's different but frame it the same.That is comedy. Just not very effective comedy.

Like i said before, people only leave open ended, allegedly prophetic statements when they really have nothing to say.

I don't call someone mentally unstable when they are not here to defend themselves ... AND CAN'T BE.

What does it say about people who talk about people's mental stability when they know good and damn well they can not be here to defend themselves?

I take it you are referr4ng to Driftwood?

(This discussion now has over 530 comments-- at least a hundred of those (if not many more) are bashing Driftwood (whether deserved or not, re: your comment, she is not here to defend herself).

I don't call someone mentally unstable when they are not here to defend themselves ... AND CAN'T BE.

What does it say about people who talk about people's mental stability when they know good and damn well they can not be here to defend themselves?

I take it you are referr4ng to Driftwood?

(This discussion now has over 530 comments-- at least a hundred of those (if not many more) are bashing Driftwood (whether deserved or not, re: your comment, she is not here to defend herself).

Of course, I suppose its a matter of opinion whether we should be bashing Driftie when she's not here to defend herself.

I would imagine some people would object strenuously to that-- many others (based upon the large number of comments attacking someone who isn't present to defend themselves, i.e. Driftie) obviously think its perfectly fine to do just that!

Opinions as to the appropriateness of that vary...

Still, i really have no grudge against you. I do know you are not well informed on this particular topic, and really dont hold it against you. You have simply accepted with blind faith a certain position, regardless of its inherently false nature, and so you have no choice, i guess, but to stand up for people who ultimately wont appreciate your efforts outside of the vicarious pleasure they take from it.

hmmmmm..... Patronism, a lovely Sunday morning breakfast treat.

Don't mistake me for being naive. Yes I go by the banner, I am the wandering fool.... but I only play the fool once.

I am not going by anything that someone or others have said to me.... I am going by the actions I witness.

Told you so? You say it's different but frame it the same.That is comedy. Just not very effective comedy.

Like i said before, people only leave open ended, allegedly prophetic statements when they really have nothing to say.

Did ya read the line before.....

Told ya so.......... :P

..... cum 'er.... I'll let ya borrow my glasses.

What I said about "you have to learn the hard way" has nothing to do with "oh yer gonna get it". I speak from experience. When it is your time around... you will know. Just remember.

You want to call Dkaz or Relentless Comedy unstable .... Woman up and do so.

But I warn you, it will bite you in the ass

Interesting. I head to OH for three days and I come back to a threat from DW, Dana and RC. How typical.

I guess that's a pretty good indicator that there is no need to call anyone unstable. They're quite adept at displaying it themselves.

And here I thought this part ofd the article died before I left. Silly me. Now I have two grown women and one grown, married man threatening to "bite my ass". Classy.

To be quite honest though, all talk of RC and Dana aside, i was really just curious how deeply involved you felt, so i walked you down a path just to be certain. You did not disappoint.

WE walked down this (ahem) isle together =)

........................... seriously...... I am argumentative. You want to read more into it... I can't stop you. But you define yourself in doing so.

Krishna...

I had to hit both of your responses up... Both true. I have not discussed Driftwood and have not real opinion on the person... but my statement about Dana and Micheal apply the same.

We have no right to discuss peoples mental stability. I know it is a common practice in our society. I see it applied to women more than men... I think Glen Beck is one of the few men who are described as having a "screw loose"....

On women it is used like a weapon. I know I have slipped and called a couple women in the media "nuts" (Sarah and Michelle). And to give my self up here.. Cuz my buddy Peter Faden is clueless of my own former actions on Newsvine. I have called out a blogger for being "crazy"... I even sang her a song called Angie Baby (Helen Reddy). Her name was Angie M. Bishop. She is no longer her and as such I am not going to say any more about her....

.... but for my part, I don't like the way it all played out... especially how it ended. Truthfully I felt bad, with the personal loss she suffered.

It has been a slow thing for me ... a growing distaste for people bashing people with "sanity" as some kind of punchline.

Now Peter... and maybe others think I am doing this out of blind loyalty for Dana and Micheal...

I disagreed with Relentless Comedy quite often. I got to know Micheal on SnB. He, before closing the group down, revealed a personal experience that was not only informative but important information in knowing who he is. And yes there were people who lurked and left nothing. I am not saying any names.

Now a couple on here want to batter around his sanity. That is sad and distasteful.

I did not like it years ago when a morning talk show group on a Country music stationed dickered around the sanity of Natalie Maine's (Dixie Chicks). I find the growing discussion of Michelle Bachmans sanity on legitimate news channels distasteful and shows a lack of journalism.

We should do better.

You don't like someone .... fine.

And for the record.... Since being on Newsvine, NewsTalkers, SnB, and Facebook.... my list of friends with Bipolar Disorder has grown. There are people out there with serious mental issues.... and this kind of "joke" is disgraceful and it reflects on those who banter about the real issues as blogger fodder.

Interesting. I head to OH for three days and I come back to a threat from DW, Dana and RC. How typical.

I guess that's a pretty good indicator that there is no need to call anyone unstable. They're quite adept at displaying it themselves.

And here I thought this part ofd the article died before I left. Silly me. Now I have two

grown women and one grown, married man threatening to "bite my ass". Classy.

Blind... is what you are... or just picking and choosing what you have read.

I threatened no one... and RC and Dana are not here. I have not talked to either in a couple months. Micheal said hi to me on FB a month or so ago... and Dana and I talked on the phone... something like 3 months ago... I have not even told her about all of this. I don't think she wants to waste one more minute on any of you. She is enjoying life with her husband and family... while you and company want to discuss her sanity.

That statement about "bitting you back on the ass" had nothing to do with a threat of violence (physical or verbal). It is a fact of life.