scoffs at the notion that Daily Kos user diaries might be deleted for being critical of the site's founder:
Go to Daily Kos, sign up for an account and see if Kos stops you from posting about all of this.
He won't. The only time he's stopped stuff was a wild conspiracy theory around election time, libelous content or otherwise harmful material such as using another site's bandwidth.
My server logs suggest otherwise. A Kos user posted a diary linked to Workbench's first entry on Jerome Armstrong's SEC problems at 1:03 p.m. Thursday.
By 1:40 p.m., the story was gone and a few tags had been added by a moderator: "troll diary" and "Rethug talking points."
Possibly he just saw it as a personal vendetta against him for taking away advertising.
"Alan Smithee" has a wide selection of "Banned from DailyKos" images to display on websites.
RCADE, you may want to go to your family physician & see if your Irony Meter needs a new fuse.
Seriously, isn't this the SAME REASON -- Criticizing the Flounder -- I & some others were deleted from Drudge?
Before you give me the stale lecture about how I *broke the rules*, please remember -- there ARE NO SET RULES in the DRUDGE.
Instead you act as Lex Animata & give the *sniff test* to each post.
Doctor, Heal Thyself!
Rogers hates censorship when he wants to his express his viewpoint. However if he does not like what you have to say he enjoys taliban style censorship.
Also, RCADE -- as you may have noticed, I have not made you a center of any rant but merely your subjective-by-definition groundrule policy of site Moderation.
If the ancient Romans, Jews & Greeks all realized that no single person was smart or unbiased enough to be an unfaliable human law -- WHY CAN'T YOU?
Can you show me where Rogers says that he won't ban you for "criticizing the founder", assuming that is really all you did?
Pointing out that A says B won't happen, while showing the B does happen, says nothing about B; not that it is good, not that it is bad, and it's certainly no open-ended indefinite promise never to do it.
There's a big difference between sanitizing the record to clear yourself of legitimate charges of misbehavior and banning people for being douchebags. Of course, I'm not talking about you guys.
Rogers, if me helping isn't helping (which seems more and more likely), I'll gladly shut it. Meanwhile, what's the word on that sperm? My sisters aren't getting any younger.
ahahahahahah.....This is too rich to be true......What a joke without humor....Rcade you are so full of it, it isn't even funny....Everyday, whackjobs like Buffalo Bob and Ray, smear, defame, lie ,and hurl profanities at anyone to the right of Cindy Sheehog .....AND YOU TOTALLY IGNORE THEM....
Your moderation policy is a sham and a phony excuse to ban the conservative side of the ledger, the gall you have to post such a story is mindboggling...
DO YOU HAVE NO SHAME? Do you think that repeating a lie makes it true?
You are the one that has 'gone to bunker', you have turned the Retort into your persoanl Gitmo, repleat with holding cells for anyone on the right.....And you have given the boot to the strongest conservative posters and allowed the nutjobs leftist free rein....
How pitiful, you are a joke.....
P.S. Rcade has somehow blocked my computer from even coming to anyone of his sham blogs....Anyone out there that doesn't think Rcade is a laughable, censorous phony, is braindead.....
I read your post as literally claiming the Kos (the man) took exception to the link to your site.
The old saw -- never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence -- comes to mind. Do you attribute the actions of every Kossack to Kos? Do you really think Daily Kos is that well-managed? The other guys specialize in message discipline, not our side.
RCADE, I think the warning sign for me is that you apparently are actually believing your own propaganda.
It's one thing to believe someone else's falsehoods because perhaps one does not have the logical gifting or the ability to research, but when you become your own publicist and swallow every cannard casually tossed out...you are either a victim of Alzheimers or some bizarre self delusional hypnotism.
This here certainly takes the cake, though: "I don't have a problem with people knocking me down a peg on the Retort. The site's moderation policy, which is linked above every comment box, is primarily enforced against personal abuse, excessive profanity, and prejudice."
The totemic statement "the site's moderation policy" is so outlandish it deserves to be honored in an Elton John/ Time Rice musical.
Allow me to help you here, RCADE: "primarily enforced against personal abuse, excessive profanity, and prejudice". This statement is actually lacking the one thing necessary for a rule of a law -- an Operative Standard.
As it is, every single statement is left up to you to strain at for its moral dung via your over-developed sense of Liberal aggrievement & the exhaustion of trying to be a one-armed Damocles that you have already complained of.
You have created the bottomless abyss Alesdair MacIntyre warned of in After Virtue in his chapter on Emotivism, and now are free falling in it.
To wit, you are an Emotivist. Your "emotions" tell you what is right & wrong.
Obviously, if you had made "RCADE's 11 Commandments" with objective tests you could no longer do that.
RCADE, you may be dancing to your own melody, but it is a shambolic and utterly vapid song you are waltzing to. Too bad you are so caught up in your own cult of Liberal vengeance. It's also a shame you gulp down the smarmy compliments your illiterate tribe of mental guppies throws your way each day like a bouquet of weeds at your feet.
Good Job Horace you bested RCADE in debate and will be allowed back beyond the gates into his warped mind. Rex and I on the other hand will remain in purgatory known as the workbench. For me this will not be long. I have a plan to gain access.
RCADE, it is HILARIOUS how the rodentia emerge from their dens to defend you. The argument for your defense always clusters around the same set of notions, too:
1. RCADE OWNS the site, ergo he may do whatever he likes.
2. RCADE is inherently fair & if you are exiled it's because you pushed the great Liberal martyr too far.
The really interesting thing, having analyzed this to myself at length is how fatuous these proposals are.
First, if Ownership is the raison de'tre it is only so for those who find dictatorships justified by the existence of dictators. RCADE has himself disavowed this line & claims to "value the community." Of course what he leaves out is the footnote that "The Community" = Good Liberals.
Second, We would ONLY know if RCADE is fair IF he had an actual objective standard that could be measured & quantified across the board comparing similar crimes on both the Right AND Left & then see the punishments.
For instance, everyone realizes RCADE doesn't care about "excessive obscenities" because the worst violators are Leftists whom never get exiled. Etc, etc, etc... ad infinitum.
I'd love to give you a lecture on the development of the Common Law principle of Due Process RCADE, but you'd need to be open minded enough to learn something you don't already "know," which is for you -- as we have all seen -- impossible.
I wanted to say thanks RCADE. You have shown me what true liberalism is all about. It means to never stand for anything while always crying about something. I used to vote Democrat without a single doubt. You have digusted me to the party that I'll never vote for your party again. You sir are a fraud. You have become what you set out to oppose. Many years ago you stood for free speech. Today you stand only for the oppression of free speech.
RCADE, I can only discuss a group amnesty here. Having been on the site even you must realize how lame it is without Zeitgeist, Jackass, DKIA, etc. As Shakespeare said & proved, conflict = drama.
I cannot speak for anyone else, like Rex. I do know that sometimes things are communicated in language that I personally wouldn't employ.
But I do know the exiled are an excellent cadre of men & that, despite their vociferous & perhaps even wildly disrespectful remarks towards you, are yet principled people who care about the truth.
I wouldn't mind discussing a return but it will have to be within the notion of amnesty. You tell me what concessions you would like & I will discuss it with the boys.
Ine the meantime and allow me to repeat -- the MAIN problem in the Drudge is a lack of an established, clear line & easily applied standards.
Should you provide that & then back it up with expulsions from the Righ AND the Left I believe that 90% of the diatribes & broadsides against you will disappear & then a century of harmony will reign.
Please put the prisoners on the bargaining table so that we can repatriate everyone & then upgrade the Drudge with a moderation policy worthy of the name.
With Fark you always know where you stand in regards to rules. With the Drudge retort it's always a crap shoot. One day a comment will pass through the next day it's ban worthy.
The addition of tags like "Rethug talking points" suggest it was in response to the content.
I wasn't trying to raise a red flag here by linking to the deleted diary. I just wanted to show a counterexample to the suggestion Kossacks are making that they have free rein there to be critical.
They do... as long as they don't engage in personal attacks against others.
The fact that the diary was linked to your site, and that you have ascribed the worst possible motivations to Armstrong, strongly suggests that the diary WAS a personal attack.
This is your blog, and you have the right to engage in personal smears against whoever you want. But, especially given that Jerome cannot the personal smears that are posted at Kos, and the fact that these kinds of smears function primarily as trollbait at Kos, I don't blame the moderators for "troll rating" the diary, and getting rid of it.
RCADE, despite the fact that I am to the Right, I have a pretty good ability to be objective.
If you want to exile someone because they have nominated themselves to become your personal demon, then I'm sure they had it coming.
Contra, it's not the people who get whacked, or the people who stay that gives the impression of political favoritism -- it's the contrast between the two groups.
It is also a hard thing to swallow, after awhile, that certain person's can continually taunt & you can't even challenge them back to a debate.
We all have biases. You don't have to drop yours & eliminate the motivation you may have had for creating the site to have a fair set of rules.
For instance, if you establish a no-obscenity policy, then it eliminates everyone who describes you as an oozing, puss-filled herpetically chancred organ (so to speak) right?
Trust me, were we to exchange seats, you'd note your own biases in a heartbeat. And dare I say you'd look askance at them
But you'd really come across as a lot more sympathetic were you to give a Hammurabic list of unbreakable "no-no's".
Putting it in the alternative -- Do you really respect a person you consider unfairly swayed, or who in a pre-set manner favors one group over another & THEN judge the latter's actions disconnected from the first?
Of course not.
All's these boys want is a level playing field. If they get that the criticism will dry up & we can all be friends again.
What a pantload you are Horace. You are a true living, breathing demonstration of incompetence that doesn't know it's incompetent. Why do you and your krew continue to insist that Rcade entertain you?
Never has there been a needier, whiney bunch of cry-babies puffing themselves up with such a misplaced sense of false self esteem.
You must be a "Visitor" from a psych ward, or better yet -- a distant star with a very small gene pool.
You are yet another cretin who crawls out of the gutter to chirp his suport of RCADE like some derranged cock-a-roach, and then collapses back onto the soggy french fry you were sucking nutriments out of.
Come out from behind your masque of anonymity so we can recoil in horror at your greasy, pockmarked & ghoulish complexion.
RCADE, what could possibly be wrong with a list of things you can't do & still stay on the board?
I know of at least one: Do NOT make sport of homosexuals. Having pointed this one out why not simply list all the rules which are unbreakable for you?
Were it my headache, instead of yours I would make obscenities off limits because how often does an obscene comment actually persuade another person?
You also do not allow threats, etc, etc
Whatever your true reasons, I can't be sure since that is hidden. But would be easy to interpret that stance as wanting to to favor part of a group who does wrong & favor the other part, even though they are guilty of the same exact crime.
I can promise you one thing -- If you bring in even a small list of rules & then enforce them on both sides equally, then your critics will be deflated.
They can no longer accuse you of rank favoritism, even if your own politics remains static.
ps, "Visitor"...please meet me in the alley, I have a present for you.
RCADE, I don't think you realize to the extent that the impression you play political favorites colors how the Libertarians & Conservatives see you in there & then react to the discipline.
If you were to take a poll -- abstracted from every other issue -- I think you'd bre shocked to find that nearly 100% of the Middle/Right believes your law enforcement is slanted Left -- & a fair number of Liberals will admit that too, off site.
Does that matter to you?
I will gurantee that is the genesis of the vast majority of the pique felt against you in there, IMHO.
What would be a list of things you would demand for an amnesty? If the Ba'ath party can have an amnesty, if the general Nazi party was allowed one, and if Churchill & Roosevelt partnered with Stalin, I'm sure we can meet halfway.
I've stuck to the facts as best I could gather them, and I reprinted Armstrong's denial in full
you uploaded a copy of the denial, and provided a link to the document ... that's not "reprinting" it.
as to your "accesstel" smear -- Armstrong was promoting AccessTel long before the stock transfer you refer to, which is easily discernable if you bother to go back and read the previous entries in the thread that you linked to. So the question becomes, when you state "I've stuck to the facts as best I could gather them...", it difficult to believe it, given the evidence of highly selective quoting of Armstrong from the Investorhub board on Accesstel.
That board shows that Armstrong did not suspect that Mankow was the con man that he turned out to be. It also shows that Armstrong (claims to have) lost $18,000 on Accesstel -- and I'd be willing to bet that even with the "25,000 shares" he got in the "reverse merger", he still lost money on that company.
Why aren't the off-topic comments here being deleted?
... Armstrong was promoting AccessTel long before the stock transfer you refer to ...
As I wrote, he posted on that AccessTel board from September 2000 to March 2002, so he was talking up the stock at least three months before the agreement and many months afterward.
... even with the "25,000 shares" he got in the "reverse merger", he still lost money on that company. ...
Perhaps, but that wouldn't change the fact he gained 25,000 shares of considerable value at the time of the reverse merger.
Whether he made or lost money depends on when he sold and whether he was bound by an agreement not to sell for a period of time following the merger.
I read all of his postings on that board. After the merger, he was critical of Michael Markow a few times, but I couldn't figure out why.
To me, the main relevance of his AccessTel postings is that he never disclosed the receipt of those 25,000 shares and wrote things that made himself look like an impartial outsider.
If he was willing to do that, why should anyone believe the SEC wrongfully accused him of stock touting?
"Why aren't the off-topic comments here being deleted?
Like to Know"
RCADE, it's really more about the principle to me than being in or out. My conviction is that all should be treated equally. In fact, that may be the greatest principle of true Liberalism.
I've never actually done anything worthy of being banned as far as I can recall. But to argue that is tedious, isn't it?
If I have to suffer with the rest of the group, that's ok. If you want to excise the most dynamic, contrary, dynamic & iconoclastic individuals out of the Drudge in the mistaken belief that uniformity causes growth -- What can I say?
You & I both know the majority of bloggers in there might be challenged with a battle plan that had anything more complex on it than putting a frozen dinner in the microwave & turning on the TV, in rapid succession.
I was extremely lucky to stumble upon the idea of cross-polinization in my reading habits when I was young, so I have at least read one or two classics in the majority of disciplines.
Therefore I am a huge fan of letting the broad spectrum of voices ring out & then letting the cream rise to the top.
In fact, THAT may be the KEY doctrine of Classic Liberalism -- doing a scientific study of all the options & opinions available & choosing the best.
So count me as a prisoner of conscience.
Thanks for the offer, anyway.
and today Bowers announces his new consultancy firm and also manages to announce the new netroots endorsed candidate. It is on Kos and MyDD. Booman has a diary criticl of this, but the virtual wall of silence as this goes on is baffling.
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
* Noam Chomsky
Finally, I agree with Chomsky!
Nice one, Free!
I am actually going to create a proposed set of rules for the Drudge, should the clouds ever part again & me & my friends get juiced back in.
Blackstone, Sir William
172380, English jurist. At first unsuccessful in legal practice, he turned to scholarship and teaching. He became (1758) the first Vinerian professor of law at Oxford, where he inaugurated courses in English law. British universities had previously confined themselves to the study of Roman law. Blackstone published his lectures as Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 vol., 176569), a work that reduced to order and lucidity the formless bulk of English law. It ranks with the achievements of Sir Edward Coke and Sir Matthew Hale, Blackstone's great predecessors. Blackstone's Commentaries, written in an urbane, dignified, and clear style, is regarded as the most thorough treatment of the whole of English law ever produced by one man. It demonstrated that English law as a system of justice was comparable to Roman law and the civil law of the Continent. Blackstone has been criticized, notably by Jeremy Bentham, for a complacent belief that, in the main, English law was beyond improvement and for his failure to analyze exactly the social and historical factors underlying legal systems. Blackstone's book exerted tremendous influence on the legal profession and on the teaching of law in England and in the United States. In his later life Blackstone resumed practice, served in Parliament, was solicitor general to the queen, and was a judge of the Court of Common Pleas
"The pope (RCADE) exercised divine authority and presided over a consistory that reached from heaven to earth. Pope Innocent RCADE III might have thoroughly relished Hostiensis rhetoric. One inexorable conclusion that one might draw from Hostiensis commentary is that if pope's authority is divine, then his law must also be divine. This logical conclusion did not escape Hostiensis. Divine law is the "Ars artium" (Science of sciences) that comprises human and canon law. Roman law is divine because the emperors created the rules of procedure by divine inspiration. The emperor is the living law (LEX ANIMATA) whom the Lord has given to men and to whom He has subjected the law.."
The ship has sailed, Horace. I can't afford to spend an hour a day on problems created by three users who think I'm a shitty and biased moderator.
Rogers Cadenhead doesn't care about commenters. And I'm pretty sure he wrote an anti-Eskimo haiku once.
I had no idea people were so hacked about being banned by you, Rogers. How does it feel to be a cruel and capricious God?
RCADE, if that's true, so be it. My point on the DR desperately needing a set of rules somewhere beyond your 4 Humours to evaluate the bleets of the plebs is so blindingly obvious that it takes wilfull ignoring to avoid.
It is the 900 pound gorilla playing with fire sticks in your living room. You might have just as persuasively lamented that a fortune cookie warned you against getting ensared in legal wrangling.
I know what I can do as a writer, conversationalist, bon vivante, and moralist. That site needs me more than I it.
I can parry virtually anyone in there without breaking a sweat via logic, analogy, literary illusion, citation of fallacies, a tasty quote, wit, historical footnote, appeal to moral codes, and parody without ever cursing. Or did that escape you?
I specialize in the iconoclasm of solecisms, and the fact that you don't recognize that is a stunning rebuke to your powers of observation.
I can certainly spend my off hours more productively. I can happily do that while you continue to push your creation towards a retrograde orbit that will certainly pull it into a fiery and life-ending descent.
Rogers we never said you were shitty. A little biased yes. I just felt as though I deserved exile not a permanent ban.
You guys really need to get a life.
We had a life. It was posting on the retort.
And now you can't understand why shitting where you "had a life" has caused you a problem? Dogs don't even shit in their own beds. Maybe that's the issue you need to resolve in your own head before pleading to Rcade and others with false promises.
Let me try an old line on you: "What part of 'no' told you to make an even worse pest of yourself because it will change somebody's mind?"
A real 'con' would move on. What's up with the sad, sorry, little spectacle the bunch of you have put on in front of everyone? Get a some real self respect. It starts with knowing you aren't the only one in the room. And I don't say that to insult. You've got some real problems. A vacation from the computer would do you good.
My dog shit on my bed, which was his bed too. My pillow, to be exact. Now it's not his bed any more.
"Visitor," I'm guessing RCADE gets a bit sick of cleaning insects like you off the bottom of his shoes. Milling around to wait & sing his hosannas when you have a sighting like some demented internet Elvis fans.
You don't even have a clue of the bigger picture or what we are arguing for.
Please move along to return to your little box in the Drudge so you can bleet back and forth with the other sickly animals.
It's becoming more & more the stinking Liberal sty full of unwholesome airs & no outside distractions that you have been dreaming about for so long.
ps, the pic is one of the feet of the halt & lame who are everyday content to spend their crippled lives in there.
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Can we have a pool, Dad?
Yeah, if you'll check there is a "pool" forming around your feet, slackjaw.
"You don't even have a clue of the bigger picture or what we are arguing for."
You seem to need to see this, again:
"Never has there been a needier, whiney bunch of cry-babies puffing themselves up with such a misplaced sense of false self esteem."
"What's up with the sad, sorry, little spectacle the bunch of you have put on in front of everyone? Get a some real self respect. It starts with knowing you aren't the only one in the room."
You haven't a hope of seeing yourself as others really see you, do you Horace?
Sorry if I offended you, trying to help get you in front of a mirror friend.
"Visitor" from another dimension, your little rant is like getting a mosquito bite on the rump, just before I sit on you. You are the morally blind guide who tries to help others along & you all end up piled on top of one another in the swamp, another slide from the Human Comedy. (Balzac -- i.e., "ballsack" for your tastes)
I know who I am which is why I am not afraid of any debate, or allow people to identify who it is who rails against their hypocrisy -- like you. What a fraud, but at least you found the appropriate clan to squirm into.
To the extent you "Liberals" try & shut up the opposition, the whole while cloaking yourself in the Constitution & Bill of Rights & Free Speech, is a sketch right of the THeatre of the Absurd.
Too bad you are too far gone to enjoy the spectacle of your own travesty -- I have a pretty good view from where I am seated.
ps, For you to even crawl up to the level to have the chance to "Offend" me -- You'd need some Art, Intelligence or Wit to breath life into your silly, myopic "anonymous" screed.
lol, I have to admit -- pretty funny RCADE
This is a big issue? There are pseudonymous entities who lurk and bark at Workbench, one who wants to stab people, and the other who implies that he wants to shoot people, but this is what you go after?
Let's put things in perspective. We live in a society whose soul is so sick that it countenances the killing of fellow human beings, but throws people in prison for simple possession of certain drugs.
This seems trivial.