BK Fan Girls

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it’s more like 1-2 morons like yourself who have nothing other than “BK fan girls!!” to hurl at people you want to silence. The rest of us are trying to have an adult conversation - complete with cited articles and facts - and all you can do is whine and make what you think are clever remarks but are actually incredibly immature outbursts. YOU are the one “gumming up” the conversation. You offer nothing. Buh bye.

I just went over to that thread to see what type of "adult conversation" you were having. At the time I checked, the last five posts in the thread were yours. The first of them was classic "whataboutism". The next was an excerpt from a WSJ article without a link to said article. The next three appear to be quotes from something, but you didn't cite a source or even identify them as quotes. So, more than likely they are plagiarized and possibly a copyright violation. In sum, you appear to have posted five times without adding any substantive thoughts of your own. This sounds very much like an attempt to "gum up legitimate conversation with stuff that doesn’t violate the rules but drowns out actual posts" as described above.

1. I listed the citation in a separate post. Every word was copied and pasted from the WSJ op-Ed I cited.
2. I decided to copy/paste as much of it as I could because the link brings you to a firewall if you don’t have a subscription.
3. I have asked you in the past why you allow posters to quote huge excerpts from articles and you said it was perfectly fine to do that. Of course, those were articles you probably agreed with, so now I see why you had no problem with them, but are calling me out for doing exactly the same thing.

In your first message, you said that the article was from the WSJ. But, you did not include a link. Moreover, there was no indication that the subsequent posts came from the same article.

I have never said that quoting huge excerpts is perfectly fine. Indeed, I frequently say the opposite. Moreover, there are two entries on our FAQ page that address this:

I found an article that I think people on DCUM will find interesting. Should I "cut and paste" the article into a message in the forums?

Only if the author of the article explicitly allows distribution of his intellectual property in that manner. DCUM respects intellectual property rights and will delete articles that appear to have been posted in violation of copyright laws. The appropriate means of bringing article to DCUM readers' attention is to post a brief summary or excerpt and a link to the original source.

Should I post a message that contains nothing but a link to an article somewhere else on the Internet?

No. The DCUM Forums are not your Facebook wall or your Twitter Feed. With a few exceptions, our forums are meant for discussion. If you think an article on another website is worth discussing, then please post a brief summary of the article or some commentary about the article along with the link. That will allow readers to make a more informed choice whether to click on the link.

Not for the first time, a Conservative thinks they are not subject to the same rules as anyone else. Finally, you didn't address why you posted your excerpts in four separate posts.

I posted the excerpts in three separate posts because I did it on my phone and was unable to copy/paste the entire article at once. It’s quite obvious to the reader that it’s one article, especially as the posts are consecutive with no break.

As for your jab, bolded, I will really have to start screen shotting your responses. You did indeed tell me a few months ago, regarding someone else’s post, that it was perfectly fine for that poster to quote almost an entire article, even though I referred to your rules, above. I now see that one set of rules is for those you agree with, and the other set is unwritten and used as needed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I have no idea why you deleted the WSJ citation. Was it so that you could accuse me of plagiarism? Wow.

I didn't delete any of your posts, though I might because they very likely violate copyright laws. Your paranoia would be amusing if it wasn't so tiring.

Here is the first post of the series and the only one that mentioned a source:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/900/828110.page#15719602

The only indication of a source is, "Great op-Ed by Peggy Noonan in today’s WSJ."

I posted the source in a separate post, within that grouping. And now it’s gone.

Oh, there was a post that had nothing but a link. I had no idea that it was supposed to be part of your series of posts. You didn't include anything to explain what the link was. Moreover, it went to Google, not to the WSJ.

Anyway, the proper way to post an excerpt is to provide a small excerpt and include a link to the source, all in one post.

Thank you, I will be sure to refer others who don’t follow your preferred format to you.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the excerpts in three separate posts because I did it on my phone and was unable to copy/paste the entire article at once. It’s quite obvious to the reader that it’s one article, especially as the posts are consecutive with no break.

As for your jab, bolded, I will really have to start screen shotting your responses. You did indeed tell me a few months ago, regarding someone else’s post, that it was perfectly fine for that poster to quote almost an entire article, even though I referred to your rules, above. I now see that one set of rules is for those you agree with, and the other set is unwritten and used as needed.

It was not all all clear that your five separate posts were all from the same article. Moreover, it would never be appropriate to post the entire article. So not being able to do that was a good thing. Posting five individual posts was pretty ridiculous and supports the claims from others that you are simply flooding the thread.

I can't speak for your memory. Our rules are very clear about posting articles. You are the second poster in two days to make a claim about something I said months ago. Obviously I don't remember the exact instance. If the article had a copyright allowing distribution, it would be okay. If the excerpt was relatively long, but its source was extremely long, it would have been okay (though questionable). But, in your case, it is very likely that you have violated the WSJ's copyright.

[Anonymous]

My guess is that the fan girls are made up of the blondes seated behind him during his "hearing."

He's got fan boys too - Tobin, PJ and Squee.

He's a disgrace and so are any of his "fans."

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. Where there is smoke there's fire and you all know it but the wagons circle . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the fan girls are made up of the blondes seated behind him during his "hearing."

He's got fan boys too - Tobin, PJ and Squee.

He's a disgrace and so are any of his "fans."

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. Where there is smoke there's fire and you all know it but the wagons circle . . .

I’m not sure what the appropriate moniker for people like you would be - those who believe any claim against BK no matter how flimsy and no matter how little evidence there is to back it up. Maybe just idiots?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll drop it, but they are crazy annoying.

+1 They make it impossible for anyone else to talk

I realize the irony of me saying that, since I spend so much time every day here - but they are incredibly irritating. And no it's not because I can't handle discourse with people who disagree with me! It's because they pee in the punch bowl.

+2
I, too, spend way too much time on here, and find the BK fangirls just insipid. I report them when I think they cross a threshold into extreme vapidity or off-topicness, but their raison d’etre is to gum up legitimate conversation with stuff that doesn’t violate the rules but drowns out actual posts. I’m not asking you to police the threads, Jeff, since this is the fifth or sixth thread that I remember - and I took six months off the site so I probably missed more. I guess this is just a whine, so I apologize for that, but the volume produced by the Aunt Lydias is overwhelming.

Translation: They respond to my posts with facts that I cannot dispute.

No, they just throw out opinion and plus ones. Nonsensical twaddle. It’s a firehouse meant to drown out legitimate conversation and to give the appearance of vast agreement with Kavanaugh and I think there are probably only 4-6 really dedicated reactionaries posting.

Exactly. The extremely vigorous, unquestionable support of BK is bizarre. Who is posting that? If not family friends or interns or a PR firm he hired, then it’s a few nut jobs. Probirthers gone wild?

That’s rich - I would say the “extremely vigorous, unquestionable” condemnation of BK - with no hard evidence, only unsubstantiated allegations - has got to be coming from a few nut jobs. At this point, if you’re still absolutely certain he did something, even after all sorts of holes have been found in the allegations, then you probably need to seek professional help.

I’m convinced that (a) he was unprofessional at the confirmation hearing, (b) there was a rush by the GOP to confirm him without further investigation (after Kennedy’s orchestrated retirement), and (c) he is biased and unbalanced (according to ABA). I don’t know what happened 30 years ago, but these three concerns were enough for me. There must be a better SCOTUS justice out there. No need to settle for this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll drop it, but they are crazy annoying.

+1 They make it impossible for anyone else to talk

I realize the irony of me saying that, since I spend so much time every day here - but they are incredibly irritating. And no it's not because I can't handle discourse with people who disagree with me! It's because they pee in the punch bowl.

+2
I, too, spend way too much time on here, and find the BK fangirls just insipid. I report them when I think they cross a threshold into extreme vapidity or off-topicness, but their raison d’etre is to gum up legitimate conversation with stuff that doesn’t violate the rules but drowns out actual posts. I’m not asking you to police the threads, Jeff, since this is the fifth or sixth thread that I remember - and I took six months off the site so I probably missed more. I guess this is just a whine, so I apologize for that, but the volume produced by the Aunt Lydias is overwhelming.

Translation: They respond to my posts with facts that I cannot dispute.

No, they just throw out opinion and plus ones. Nonsensical twaddle. It’s a firehouse meant to drown out legitimate conversation and to give the appearance of vast agreement with Kavanaugh and I think there are probably only 4-6 really dedicated reactionaries posting.

Exactly. The extremely vigorous, unquestionable support of BK is bizarre. Who is posting that? If not family friends or interns or a PR firm he hired, then it’s a few nut jobs. Probirthers gone wild?

That’s rich - I would say the “extremely vigorous, unquestionable” condemnation of BK - with no hard evidence, only unsubstantiated allegations - has got to be coming from a few nut jobs. At this point, if you’re still absolutely certain he did something, even after all sorts of holes have been found in the allegations, then you probably need to seek professional help.

I’m convinced that (a) he was unprofessional at the confirmation hearing, (b) there was a rush by the GOP to confirm him without further investigation (after Kennedy’s orchestrated retirement), and (c) he is biased and unbalanced (according to ABA). I don’t know what happened 30 years ago, but these three concerns were enough for me. There must be a better SCOTUS justice out there. No need to settle for this guy.

I guess you haven't heard. He was confirmed to SCOTUS and is now a sitting justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll drop it, but they are crazy annoying.

+1 They make it impossible for anyone else to talk

I realize the irony of me saying that, since I spend so much time every day here - but they are incredibly irritating. And no it's not because I can't handle discourse with people who disagree with me! It's because they pee in the punch bowl.

+2
I, too, spend way too much time on here, and find the BK fangirls just insipid. I report them when I think they cross a threshold into extreme vapidity or off-topicness, but their raison d’etre is to gum up legitimate conversation with stuff that doesn’t violate the rules but drowns out actual posts. I’m not asking you to police the threads, Jeff, since this is the fifth or sixth thread that I remember - and I took six months off the site so I probably missed more. I guess this is just a whine, so I apologize for that, but the volume produced by the Aunt Lydias is overwhelming.

Translation: They respond to my posts with facts that I cannot dispute.

No, they just throw out opinion and plus ones. Nonsensical twaddle. It’s a firehouse meant to drown out legitimate conversation and to give the appearance of vast agreement with Kavanaugh and I think there are probably only 4-6 really dedicated reactionaries posting.

Exactly. The extremely vigorous, unquestionable support of BK is bizarre. Who is posting that? If not family friends or interns or a PR firm he hired, then it’s a few nut jobs. Probirthers gone wild?

That’s rich - I would say the “extremely vigorous, unquestionable” condemnation of BK - with no hard evidence, only unsubstantiated allegations - has got to be coming from a few nut jobs. At this point, if you’re still absolutely certain he did something, even after all sorts of holes have been found in the allegations, then you probably need to seek professional help.

I’m convinced that (a) he was unprofessional at the confirmation hearing, (b) there was a rush by the GOP to confirm him without further investigation (after Kennedy’s orchestrated retirement), and (c) he is biased and unbalanced (according to ABA). I don’t know what happened 30 years ago, but these three concerns were enough for me. There must be a better SCOTUS justice out there. No need to settle for this guy.

I guess you haven't heard. He was confirmed to SCOTUS and is now a sitting justice.

No shit.

[jsteele]

Okay folks, now this is turning into the Political Forum.