Rev. Wright has his own tabloid sex scandal

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You and I do differ strongly on one thing. You think it's important to stifle criticism of one's own candidate. In this sense, you are a "true believer," as another poster suggested in a recent thread. I think it's important to not stifle criticism of one's own candidate, but to own both the potential and the problems of the candidate. Haven't you seen the bumper sticker that says dissent is patriotic?

I find myself worrying about your reaction to my posts because you apparently monitor my IP address, and that bothers me. I'm not sure if you're deliberately seeking to be intimidating or not. I can live with you watching my IP address, but it truly bothers me when you post inaccurate information and don't go back and acknowledge your mistake.

I am not "monitoring your IP address". As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I have read enough of your messages to recognize them almost immediately. Frankly, any anti-Obama message is a likely suspect. If the message further suggests sympathy with Obama -- having just bashed him -- then its a dead give away. For what its worth, a users' IP address appears just below their name, or "Anonymous" in most cases. I really can't avoid seeing it. It is my impression, though I haven't confirmed it, that you don't keep the same IP address. So, monitoring it would not be of any use.

One thing that should be clear is that I am not trying to stifle criticism. I believe the anecdote to speech with which you disagree is more speech. Therefore, I counter your anti-Obama posts with my pro-Obama posts. I agree that it is important to be honest about your candidate's shortcomings, but I'm not sure it necessary to take as much pleasure in it as you seem to do.

As for intimidating you, are you crazy? I have been arguing with you since November or something. I know enough to understand that there is little chance that you will be intimidated by mere words. Provoked, yes. Pissed off, on occasion, but intimidated? I don't see it happening.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You and I do differ strongly on one thing. You think it's important to stifle criticism of one's own candidate. In this sense, you are a "true believer," as another poster suggested in a recent thread. I think it's important to not stifle criticism of one's own candidate, but to own both the potential and the problems of the candidate. Haven't you seen the bumper sticker that says dissent is patriotic?

I find myself worrying about your reaction to my posts because you apparently monitor my IP address, and that bothers me. I'm not sure if you're deliberately seeking to be intimidating or not. I can live with you watching my IP address, but it truly bothers me when you post inaccurate information and don't go back and acknowledge your mistake.

I am not "monitoring your IP address". As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I have read enough of your messages to recognize them almost immediately. Frankly, any anti-Obama message is a likely suspect. If the message further suggests sympathy with Obama -- having just bashed him -- then its a dead give away. For what its worth, a users' IP address appears just below their name, or "Anonymous" in most cases. I really can't avoid seeing it. It is my impression, though I haven't confirmed it, that you don't keep the same IP address. So, monitoring it would not be of any use.

One thing that should be clear is that I am not trying to stifle criticism. I believe the anecdote to speech with which you disagree is more speech. Therefore, I counter your anti-Obama posts with my pro-Obama posts. I agree that it is important to be honest about your candidate's shortcomings, but I'm not sure it necessary to take as much pleasure in it as you seem to do.

As for intimidating you, are you crazy? I have been arguing with you since November or something. I know enough to understand that there is little chance that you will be intimidated by mere words. Provoked, yes. Pissed off, on occasion, but intimidated? I don't see it happening.

I am new to this forum as of the last few days and I find this exchange more than a little troubling. When you say the IP address is below the "Anonymous," that is something only you see, right? I understand that you always post with your name, but when there is the option of posting anonymously, for that to mean anything, it should mean that you do not call them out personally by referring to their other posts, also submitted anonymously. What are the rules, here? I have been arguing with you for a couple of days now ... will I soon be on the bad list?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
I am not "monitoring your IP address". As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I have read enough of your messages to recognize them almost immediately. Frankly, any anti-Obama message is a likely suspect. If the message further suggests sympathy with Obama -- having just bashed him -- then its a dead give away. For what its worth, a users' IP address appears just below their name, or "Anonymous" in most cases. I really can't avoid seeing it. It is my impression, though I haven't confirmed it, that you don't keep the same IP address. So, monitoring it would not be of any use.

One thing that should be clear is that I am not trying to stifle criticism. I believe the anecdote to speech with which you disagree is more speech. Therefore, I counter your anti-Obama posts with my pro-Obama posts. I agree that it is important to be honest about your candidate's shortcomings, but I'm not sure it necessary to take as much pleasure in it as you seem to do.

As for intimidating you, are you crazy? I have been arguing with you since November or something. I know enough to understand that there is little chance that you will be intimidated by mere words. Provoked, yes. Pissed off, on occasion, but intimidated? I don't see it happening.

I don't know diddly about my IP address, frankly. I use a WAN card so I would think I'm always showing up with the same IP address. I wouldn't know how to change it if I wanted to. Maybe if I use a different browser or something? I don't know.

As far as you thinking you always know which posts are mine, without looking at the IP address, I think you're making a lot of assumptions, just as I did the other day. Regardless, you asked me not to call out a certain poster. I effed that up and I stopped. I'd ask the same of you. There is an intimidation effect, believe it or not, if I don't have the same anonymity as other posters.

I agree that I do take pleasure in puncturing some of Obama's puffery. I did refrain from commenting on his temple-like columns at the DNC, so give me credit for that. I think his choice of running mate may well have lost the election for the Democratic Party. So far Biden has added absolutely nothing to the ticket and opened the door to Palin, who at least for now has pushed McCain up in the polls. I thought Obama should suck it up and add Hillary to the ticket, but he didn't think he needed to. That does piss me off. Take a look at the electoral map. McCain only has to swing a state or two and we are screwed. With HRC on the ticket we'd be running against McCain and Romney or Pawlenty and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, probably even Florida, would be practically in the bag. A two-time also-ran like Joe Biden was not going to give us what we needed. But Sarah Palin is apparently giving McCain exactly what he needed.

Off my soapbox now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am new to this forum as of the last few days and I find this exchange more than a little troubling. When you say the IP address is below the "Anonymous," that is something only you see, right? I understand that you always post with your name, but when there is the option of posting anonymously, for that to mean anything, it should mean that you do not call them out personally by referring to their other posts, also submitted anonymously. What are the rules, here? I have been arguing with you for a couple of days now ... will I soon be on the bad list?

There's a shrink on here who claims that I have access to all users IP addresses via Google Analytics.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I am new to this forum as of the last few days and I find this exchange more than a little troubling. When you say the IP address is below the "Anonymous," that is something only you see, right? I understand that you always post with your name, but when there is the option of posting anonymously, for that to mean anything, it should mean that you do not call them out personally by referring to their other posts, also submitted anonymously. What are the rules, here? I have been arguing with you for a couple of days now ... will I soon be on the bad list?

I am afraid that my answer is unlikely to be reassuring but it will be truthful.

Yes, under the username, which is most cases is "Anonymous" the ip address is displayed. Only system administrators (of which there are two) can see the address. There are thousands of users a day on this website. Add to that the fact that I am bad with numbers and you have a situation in which you have to try pretty hard to create a situation in which I recognize your IP address. Socket puppets frequently come to light when a number of posts in the same thread have the same IP address. That is not a case of me tracking or monitoring their addresses. That is simply a case at looking at a page and seeing the same IP address over and over.

I obviously can see your address and it does not look familiar to me. If we have been arguing, it has not bothered me enough to pay attention to your address. If it had bothered me enough, I would only have a better feel for with whom I was arguing. I assume we have argued about a political issue. In such a case, there is no "bad list". If you have exposed me as a fraud and a bumbling idiot, you have probably earned my respect. I appreciate a good debate. I especially appreciate leaving a debate more and better informed than I entered it.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the response -- I appreciate the explanation and agree wholeheartedly about a good debate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am new to this forum as of the last few days and I find this exchange more than a little troubling. When you say the IP address is below the "Anonymous," that is something only you see, right? I understand that you always post with your name, but when there is the option of posting anonymously, for that to mean anything, it should mean that you do not call them out personally by referring to their other posts, also submitted anonymously. What are the rules, here? I have been arguing with you for a couple of days now ... will I soon be on the bad list?

I am afraid that my answer is unlikely to be reassuring but it will be truthful.

Yes, under the username, which is most cases is "Anonymous" the ip address is displayed. Only system administrators (of which there are two) can see the address. There are thousands of users a day on this website. Add to that the fact that I am bad with numbers and you have a situation in which you have to try pretty hard to create a situation in which I recognize your IP address. Socket puppets frequently come to light when a number of posts in the same thread have the same IP address. That is not a case of me tracking or monitoring their addresses. That is simply a case at looking at a page and seeing the same IP address over and over.

I obviously can see your address and it does not look familiar to me. If we have been arguing, it has not bothered me enough to pay attention to your address. If it had bothered me enough, I would only have a better feel for with whom I was arguing. I assume we have argued about a political issue. In such a case, there is no "bad list". If you have exposed me as a fraud and a bumbling idiot, you have probably earned my respect. I appreciate a good debate. I especially appreciate leaving a debate more and better informed than I entered it.

Good answer, Jeff.