Skinny Shug's (stop snitchin videos) baby got shot in Baltimore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Posted from the US House of Representatives. Your government at work.

And your snide comment was juvenile and inappropriate for a board moderator.

I'm not sure how I feel about a moderator who uses his 'powers' to 'out' someone in such a fashion.

+1. I agree that the remark was repugnant, but a big part of what makes DCUM what it is (the good and the bad) is that people feel free to post anonymously. Perhaps in this case, Jeff quasi-outed someone for stating something that most of us would agree is morally reprehensible. But it could still have the effect of chilling speech, because there's no saying when Jeff will choose to exercise those powers. And I think part of me is disappointed because I thought Jeff was above that sort of thing.

+ 1

I agree. I am never going to be comfortable again writing anything that will not show me in a good light. That means that I have to be PC all the time. The anonymity of this forum was the best part of this forum. Yes - there are conflicts and wars - but there are also honest give and take. And I would rather hear the real reasons why someone disagrees with me, rather than be presented with the polite mask that we are presented with everyday IRL.

I also thought that Jeff was above something like that. However, DCUM has brought out the best and the worst in all of us - one time or another - and so I think we can let it go this once.

I appreciate when Jeff cleans up after us (deleting threads and locking threads) - I think as a moderator that is a great work. However, let the anonymity be maintained. Don't call out posters in this way.

I don't think you need to watch what you say. I doubt Jeff checks where most posts come from. Someone saying "good" about a child's murder is pretty egregious, so I think it makes sense he checked up on it, and he had every right to say that it came from such an interesting source. No one has been outed.

[Anonymous]

11:20 here again- I have the sneaking suspicion that the poster was John Boehner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Posted from the US House of Representatives. Your government at work.

Unbelievable.

I would love to walk down the street and engage that poster in a friendly conversation on my lunchbreak. I have lost over sixty neighbors, associates, friends, etc. to gun violence right here in this city. Good, is the last thing that it is. It's a fourteen year old for pete's sake.

Um . . . actually it happened in Baltimore.

[Anonymous]

For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

What does it mean?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

What does it mean?

I think there are some DVDs that will help with that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More outing. Could we change the default status to something akin to the truth, such as: "semi-anonymous" or "anonymous only when Jeff feels like it or agrees with your politics" ??

You have a strange definition of anonymity. Since you apparently -- thanks to me -- know this poster's identity now, why don't you schedule a lunch with her? Also, I am assuming that it is a "she" based on our user demographics which heavily favor women.

I think the real question is, do you see how your actions can be construed by some as, well, kind of shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Posted from the US House of Representatives. Your government at work.

And your snide comment was juvenile and inappropriate for a board moderator.

I'm not sure how I feel about a moderator who uses his 'powers' to 'out' someone in such a fashion.

+1. I agree that the remark was repugnant, but a big part of what makes DCUM what it is (the good and the bad) is that people feel free to post anonymously. Perhaps in this case, Jeff quasi-outed someone for stating something that most of us would agree is morally reprehensible. But it could still have the effect of chilling speech, because there's no saying when Jeff will choose to exercise those powers. And I think part of me is disappointed because I thought Jeff was above that sort of thing.

+ 1

I agree. I am never going to be comfortable again writing anything that will not show me in a good light. That means that I have to be PC all the time. The anonymity of this forum was the best part of this forum. Yes - there are conflicts and wars - but there are also honest give and take. And I would rather hear the real reasons why someone disagrees with me, rather than be presented with the polite mask that we are presented with everyday IRL.

I also thought that Jeff was above something like that. However, DCUM has brought out the best and the worst in all of us - one time or another - and so I think we can let it go this once.

I appreciate when Jeff cleans up after us (deleting threads and locking threads) - I think as a moderator that is a great work. However, let the anonymity be maintained. Don't call out posters in this way.

I don't think you need to watch what you say. I doubt Jeff checks where most posts come from. Someone saying "good" about a child's murder is pretty egregious, so I think it makes sense he checked up on it, and he had every right to say that it came from such an interesting source. No one has been outed.

Would the House feel that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good.

Posted from the US House of Representatives. Your government at work.

And your snide comment was juvenile and inappropriate for a board moderator.

I'm not sure how I feel about a moderator who uses his 'powers' to 'out' someone in such a fashion.

+1. I agree that the remark was repugnant, but a big part of what makes DCUM what it is (the good and the bad) is that people feel free to post anonymously. Perhaps in this case, Jeff quasi-outed someone for stating something that most of us would agree is morally reprehensible. But it could still have the effect of chilling speech, because there's no saying when Jeff will choose to exercise those powers. And I think part of me is disappointed because I thought Jeff was above that sort of thing.

+ 1

I agree. I am never going to be comfortable again writing anything that will not show me in a good light. That means that I have to be PC all the time. The anonymity of this forum was the best part of this forum. Yes - there are conflicts and wars - but there are also honest give and take. And I would rather hear the real reasons why someone disagrees with me, rather than be presented with the polite mask that we are presented with everyday IRL.

I also thought that Jeff was above something like that. However, DCUM has brought out the best and the worst in all of us - one time or another - and so I think we can let it go this once.

I appreciate when Jeff cleans up after us (deleting threads and locking threads) - I think as a moderator that is a great work. However, let the anonymity be maintained. Don't call out posters in this way.

I don't think you need to watch what you say. I doubt Jeff checks where most posts come from. Someone saying "good" about a child's murder is pretty egregious, so I think it makes sense he checked up on it, and he had every right to say that it came from such an interesting source. No one has been outed.

Would the House feel that way?

That depends. Can the House identify the specific individual who posted that just because Jeff outed its origin?

[youngblackdude]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

What does it mean?

Somebody who does dirt..gets caught & tells on other people who do dirt so they can get a lighter sentence(& or no time at all)


R.I.p to the young fella though

[Anonymous]

youngblackdude wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For real Jeff, stop snitchin'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

What does it mean?

Somebody who does dirt..gets caught & tells on other people who do dirt so they can get a lighter sentence(& or no time at all)


R.I.p to the young fella though

I have actually seen the Stop Fucking Snitching video, and it's broader than that. Those people who snitch to get lighter sentences are the the most reviled snitches, but Stop Snitching puts anyone who tells the police or testifies about who committed a crime in the "snitch" category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More outing. Could we change the default status to something akin to the truth, such as: "semi-anonymous" or "anonymous only when Jeff feels like it or agrees with your politics" ??

You have a strange definition of anonymity. Since you apparently -- thanks to me -- know this poster's identity now, why don't you schedule a lunch with her? Also, I am assuming that it is a "she" based on our user demographics which heavily favor women.

I think the real question is, do you see how your actions can be construed by some as, well, kind of shady.

How do we know that Jeff isn't Edward Snowden? Hmmm....

[Anonymous]

that means Maria is the exotic dancer gf of Snowden! Oh my!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More outing. Could we change the default status to something akin to the truth, such as: "semi-anonymous" or "anonymous only when Jeff feels like it or agrees with your politics" ??

You have a strange definition of anonymity. Since you apparently -- thanks to me -- know this poster's identity now, why don't you schedule a lunch with her? Also, I am assuming that it is a "she" based on our user demographics which heavily favor women.

I think the real question is, do you see how your actions can be construed by some as, well, kind of shady.

How do we know that Jeff isn't Edward Snowden? Hmmm....

Jeff's far to much of a hard core liberal to do what Edward Snowman did to current liberals in the administration; even HRC turned on him today - but certainly only to benefit her chances at the WH (the only thing she cares about is her own pursuit of power).