Message
It's a good idea, but any experts would probably want to be paid far more than I can afford to pay them.
That thread was brought to my attention prior to the camp director's post. Therefore, I had already looked into it by that time. There is no evidence that the thread was sock puppeted in the sense that one poster posted several replies. But, I was convinced that the responses had been orchestrated. After giving it some thought, I decided that as long as they were real parents posting actual experiences, there was nothing wrong with it. But, I was still concerned that the posters might not be parents, but camp staff or others with a vested interest in the camp. As a result of the Director's post and his acknowledged role, I'm willing to put my suspicions aside. It is a bit surprising that someone would organize such a response, but I don't see anything wrong with it.
That thread also reinforces something that I constantly see on DCUM. Our readers are a perceptive bunch. Sock puppets have to be at the top of their game to pull one over around here.
That thread also reinforces something that I constantly see on DCUM. Our readers are a perceptive bunch. Sock puppets have to be at the top of their game to pull one over around here.
Anonymous wrote:That makes two of us...
You be nice also.
Anonymous wrote:You can see my ISP. How close am I to being banned?
I am inconsistent. Helpful one moment, trolling the next. Well, not trolling for the sake of it, but more having a strong reaction.
You are not even on my radar. But, be nice.
Anonymous wrote:
Hey, educated person, try reading what I said. I didn't say they deserved sympathy. I was responding to the argument made above that we are moving to a class-based society, which I took to mean that prejudice is now based on class more than it's based on race. There has always been class prejudice in this country but race-based prejudice hasn't gone away, it's just become more subtle. And yes, I think some white people living in DC forget that racism is still out there because they live in a minority-white city and they're not recognizing that prejudice is alive and well (even within themselves). But I also think there is a segment of white people living in the District who are still blatantly prejudiced and that it goes beyond class. (I see it in supposedly liberal Capitol Hill all the time) And I'm absolutely certain there are plenty of whites around the country who hold race-based prejudice that has nothing to do with class whatsoever.
I know there is a regular DCUM poster who emphasizes class prejudice over racial prejudice and I think she has a point but I think she is wrong in the assumption (if I read her correctly) that class prejudice has now eclipsed racial prejudice. And yeah, I don't think she realizes how scared some white people still are of black people. It's a baseless fear born out of prejudice and refusal to recognize their own white privilege but it's a fear nevertheless. And calling it fear doesn't mean it should be accommodated. It should never accommodated. But how about you try reading more carefully before jumping in to call someone a jackass?
I don't know what your goal is, or even if you have a goal. But, you are playing a very negative role in this thread. The poster who brought up class was not talking about prejudice. The word didn't even appear in her post. She was discussing how groups in DC can be categorized. Discussing the city as being divided between black and white is insufficient when there is a segment of black society that has more in common with the white community than with African-Americans of a different socio-economic stratum. She suggested that class is a more accurate metric.
Her argument has nothing to do with which prejudices may or may not exist between groups. Indeed, prejudices exist across many lines with Christians who don't like Jews, straights who don't like gays, whites who don't like blacks and blacks who similarly don't like whites. That is a completely different discussion. Nobody here is denying that there is prejudice against blacks. But, claiming that white people in DC are dominated by an uncontrollable fear of black people is simply ridiculous. Frankly, it's insulting. It is exactly the sort of generalization about a group of people from which racism is born. Moreover, I cannot think of any topic less interesting then a discussion of which prejudice is better or worse then another prejudice. All of them are wrong.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Maybe Mississippi could then market itself as a gulag for the other states. I think banishment there is far scarier than low-security prison.
Mississippi is the home of the blues. If things would have been better there, we would have been deprived of Rock and Roll music. We'd all be jamming to Gran Ole Opry songs. So, let's show some appreciation.
Anonymous wrote:Only blacks on the liberal plantation are allowed to run for president. See Herman Cain ...
I saw Herman Cain. I actually saw him run for president. Exactly how was he prevented from running? Do you have a really short memory or something?
Anonymous wrote:If he was a democrat I doubt he would have been impeached or even investigated. The liberal press is not interested in democrat corruption and they ran the show. A democrat congress would be unlikely to impeach as well.
You are mixing up issues. One issue is whether Nixon committed acts that were worthy of impeachment. A second issue is whether a Democrat would have been impeached for committing the same acts. You also suggest that a Democratic congress would not have impeached a Democrat, yet don't discuss whether a Republican Congress would have ignored Nixon's transgressions or, for example, the Republican Congress' impeachment of Clinton was politically motivated.
The OP's complaint was really about people like you.
Anonymous wrote:the congress was democratic for 40 years. the press was controlled by very few liberal networks and liberal newspapers. Liberals attacked Goldwater with an Ad that said he would cause a nuclear holocaust. Nixon was hated by liberals and called tricky-dick impeached by a democrat congress and resigned. Reagan was hated but his acting skills synmied the hateful press and liberal establishment. Bush was relentlessly attacked by liberals, code pink, had a liberal play performed about assasinating him. The difference is now conservatives (who are th majority of the country) have engaged liberals in the same nasty tactics and have outlets on radio, the internet and cable. Newspapers and networks have lost influence. Liberals do not see thier nasty attackes as uncivilized but are outrages by conservative (majority) blowback. end of story.
Do you seriously believe Nixon was simply impeached as a result of Democratic hostility to his political positions? Do you have any understanding at all of the legal transgressions that occurred under his administration? Your one-sided presentation of the "facts" and your concomitent declaration that this is the "end of story" is a perfect example of the OP's complaint about "people who insist loudly that their opinions are correct even though they have no idea what they are talking about?". Thanks for providing a conservative example to go with the liberal example the OP initially presented.
Anonymous wrote:The thing that concerns me, and why I gave the "cross examination" is that I think it's a freak or drama addict feeding on the emotions, stories, and reactions shared by others. I would bet a lot of money that the post is fake. While you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the OP, I want to err on the side of people sharing their stories and emotions with someone I really do believe is just fishing here. People get really emotionally invested in these stories. I think it's a sketchy post and I think with respect to these post, which seem aimed at eliciting "stories" or shared experiences that may include details, it's fair to be careful. I didn't buy the story from the beginning, but with every subsequent post, the OP upped the ante. And she's one of those posters who is like "oh, what should I do?" but people are saying "hey, consult a professional" and she's not taking the advice. She really doesn't seem to want advice, she just seems to want shared experiences which I think is super, super sketchy.
I say she, but I'm not at ALL sure this is a woman posting.
I understand what you are saying, but the evidence I see simply doesn't support your theory. First of all, nobody spends months developing a posting history on a range of topics in order to eventually troll for stories about child molestation. A troll would simply show up and post because nobody but me knows his posting history. Second, in your view, the OP didn't take the advice to contact a professional. A second interpretation is that the poster was at work and didn't want to leave work in the middle of the day. She didn't post again after 3 pm. How can you be sure that she didn't contact professionals after 3? DCUM is not a one hour drama on NBC where everything is tidily wrapped up by the end of the show. As I said, she posted once at night from one computer, and then between roughly noon and 3 from a second computer. If she didn't see the response to her original post until noon, how quickly did you expect her to contact a professional? Would a three hour delay be too much in your view? People keep saying that "I would do this or that" and are upset that the OP didn't react the way they would have. That's simplistic. People deal with things differently. Maybe you wouldn't post at night and then not check the thread again until noon the next day. Maybe a lot of people wouldn't. But, that's what the poster says she did and there is no reason to doubt that's the truth. Maybe you would have run from your office immediately after seeing the replies at noon. But, the poster didn't. She continued responding until 3. We don't know what happened after that.
Anonymous wrote:Are they the same scientists who fqaked climate studies?
Without taking a position on the original premise of this thread, I will say that this post demonstrates why some people might suspect that there is a link between conservative views and low intelligence. The belief that climate studies have been faked is not supported by fact. Yet, I am sure no amount of supporting evidence will convince you that the studies have not been faked. This willingness to place tremendous faith in politically convenient, yet factually bankrupt, ideas does little to suggest high intelligence on behalf of the holders of such thoughts.
Anonymous wrote:
But, to defend Gingrich, he said "the language of a ghetto". By that, he could mean that it is disadvantageous to speak a language that is only widely used in your local neighborhood and therefore limits job opportunities in the rest of your town or city. In that sense, he is using the term "ghetto" like a sociologist or political scientist would.
Gingrich tried to explain himself in similar terms, although he didn't admit to using the term "ghetto". But, I wasn't really commenting on the accuracy of the commercial. I was laughing at Romney denying that he had seen the commercial and then being told by Blitzer that the commercial ended with Mitt saying, "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message". I immediately thought of the above scene from Austin Powers.
By the way, this is at least the second time that Romney has lied about a commercial during a debate. I started a thread in this forum regarding an earlier incident in which Romney claimed not to have seen a commercial but then went on to describe the commercial almost word for word.
Anonymous wrote:I was the first person to notice something wrong about it. The mom is "quite dejected?" She's writing 5 posts per day that are paragraphs long? Throwing in snippets like "I walk around naked around him but don't anymore and he used to slap my ass" WTF? The story goes from her son to her entire family including a nephew? She called her son into the room but then said he was already there? Then had some kind of excuse for why her story changed? And nearly everyone tells her to consult a professional but she keeps coming back, adding more juicy details and saying "oh, oh, what should I do?" And this happens and she doesn't immediately talk to her kids? No way this post is real. NO WAY. Meantime, these poor people who really have been abused are replying, sharing their own stories, and probably feeding some sick fuck's fantasy or giving some asshole the drama they want. Please keep an eye on this thread and others like it. They are fishing and it's OBVIOUS.
Her posting pattern is pretty straight forward. She posted one post last night. Just before noon today she posted from a different computer saying that she had posted before going to bed and was only then able to get a break from work. She then posted 11 additional posts responding to other posters. The last of those posts was around 3 pm today. Your perception is that she is a mom facing a traumatic situation and should be rushing for emergency assistance. Her own perception appears to be that she is not quite sure what to believe and seeking other opinions. What I see coincides perfectly with a mom posting once from home, then 12 times from work, and then stayed off of DCUM after leaving work.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:This is technically infeasible. Though I do agree that many of our trouble-makers are long distance visitors. I've blocked two such posters in the past 24 hours.
What gets one blocked? (Not that I'm hoping to get myself blocked). Do you block people merely for trolling?
Generally, I only block people who show an ongoing pattern of disruptive posting. I can respect a talented troll as much as the next guy, but I have no patience for untalented ones.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the original poster. There is nothing suspicious that I can identify in the thread.
It is fairly common that posters -- for a variety of reasons -- do not provide every last detail of a situation when posting about it. For some reason, many of our users respond in such cases as if they are cross-examining a hostile witness. That's unfortunate when people are authentically seeking assistance.
It is fairly common that posters -- for a variety of reasons -- do not provide every last detail of a situation when posting about it. For some reason, many of our users respond in such cases as if they are cross-examining a hostile witness. That's unfortunate when people are authentically seeking assistance.