I have posted replies

[Summer Hathaway]

to several DUers who have expressed their anger/frustration at the fact that Michelle Obama's speech at a fundraiser, interrupted by Ms. Sturtz who wanted the FLOTUS to speak to GLBT issues instead of addressing the plight of inner-city children, as being demonstrative of being dismissive of GLBT issues.

Thus far, I have had no responses to my query, being: If Michelle had been addressing the issue of GLBT rights, and had been interrupted by someone insisting that she address the plight of inner-city children instead, would you still condone the heckler as being a 'hero' for attempting to change the subject?

[Purveyor]

1. Of course you know the answer to your query. This joint reeks of hypocrisy as of late on many

issues.

spit.

[Honeycombe8]

6. +1. nt

[HappyMe]

8. Good question.

[emulatorloo]

27. You hit the nail on the head.

Some very loud posters will say ANYTHING as long as it fits thier anti-democratic agenda.

[Number23]

33. Ain't just of late. Been that way for a long time.

[Whisp]

2. ouch!

that is gonna hurt.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Plain truth.

K/R

[Luminous Animal]

4. I didn't get that she wanted Ms Obama to change her speech...

I believe she was asking Michelle Obama to try to influence her husband to sign an executive order disallow discrimination on the federal level.

Does anyone have a transcript?

[DevonRex]

13. Hecklers do not ask. They heckle - interrupt, shout over, disrupt. nt

[Luminous Animal]

17. Thanks for addressing my point.

[DevonRex]

18. There is terrible audio but only partial since it was a private event.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/06/05/michelle-obama-takes-on-heckler-audio.html

Private as in not open to the public. No filming allowed. Somebody got a little on their phone.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Thank you.

[DevonRex]

24. Anytime. :-)

[ProSense]

5. Face it

people are hypocrites, and some have come to believe that being rude to the Obamas is cool. Little do they realize how many people despise their actions. It's not simply about policy anymore. It's seeking them out and trying to be as rude as possible.

Can you say backfrigginlash?

[sheshe2]

11. "some have come to believe that being rude to the Obamas is cool."

Ain't that the truth!

[Kali]

81. chicken or egg

backlash could be a matter of perspective

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. With nothing political to move my thoughts (and I am not always a big fan of the Obama admin...)

I thought it was just plain rude. Sometimes it is what it is.

[ProSense]

9. Related:

CODEPINK Statement Regarding Twitter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022953975

[JI7]

10. she didn't even ask her to discuss GLBT issues, she demanded she get her husband

to sign something . stuff like that comes off as just not being that serious. it's like that code pink heckling Obama. he was going to address her but her only goal was to get attentionf or herself not about the issue.

and the ones i can't stand are those who are so outraged at how michelle reacted.

[Neoma]

92. The way AIDS became a talked about subject and eventually addressed was by heckling Bill Clinton.

Sometimes the only way to be heard is to do something like that. The message wasn't bad, but it probably wasn't the right person to interrupt.

[sheshe2]

12. Well done, Summer!

[HappyMe]

14. kick

[alp227]

15. Sadly the trolling by ellen spears more self centered

than helpful. My answer to your question: NO (with grumpy cat in the background).

[BenzoDia]

16. That's a fine point you bring up.

[Half-Century Man]

19. If I'm not mistaken

The POTUS is the elected official and therefore a public servant. The FLOTUS holds honorary chairs in some organizations, and not a public servant. If someone is ...extremely troubled by the expected performance of a public servant, there might be a case for interrupting a media event held by that public servant to demand an answer. I do not believe interrupting the honorary chair person of a charity fundraiser and demand she confront her husband on a completely unrelated matter is excusable.

There is more than one problem with our world, no matter how passionate you might be about yours.

[Luminous Animal]

21. It was a DNC fundraiser not charity. Obama was raising money for the Democratic Party...

not poor kids.

[Half-Century Man]

23. Even at a different venue..

..I think my opinion is valid.

[Summer Hathaway]

29. Yes, she was raising money for the Party.

And in the doing, she spoke to the issue of inner-city kids and the challenges they face in today's society.

Again I pose the question: Had she been speaking about the challenges faced by the GLBT community, and had been interrupted by someone wanting her to address 'poor kids', or environmental concerns, or for-profit prisons, or Gitmo, or healthcare, or education - or anything other than GLBT concerns, would you have welcomed an interruption of that topic as being 'heroic'?

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. It was an 'LBT Women's Discussion and Reception' raising money for the DNC

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-michelle-obama-heckler-20130606,0,5200409.story

and her speech was about the importance of working to elect more Democrats to Congress. She very briefly mentioned an LBT concern at just one point in her speech - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2959548 .

[Kali]

82. you seem to think civil RIGHTS are just some kind of "issue"

and you sure are evasive about who you originally asked your question to, why is that?

[Summer Hathaway]

88. No, I don't think civil rights is

'some kind of issue'.

I don't know why it is the least bit important who I 'asked' this question of. I posted the query as part of my reply to OPs on this topic. Quite frankly, I don't remember who the OP author was in each case. There were several OPs on the subject, and I was going back and forth between them, catching up on new responses in each. I was curious to see what different opinions people had on the incident.

If I said in my OP, "I was discussing this with some coworkers the other day, and decided to post it as an OP," would you be demanding to know who my coworkers are?

The fact that I had posted the query elsewhere on DU has nothing to do with anything. If it is such a burning question for you, you can probably find my posts quite easily by searching the threads on this topic from yesterday.

Despite what someone here is implying, I did not 'demand' a response from anyone. I simply raised the idea, "What would you think if ..." as part of thread discussions. No one took up the discussion, but I thought it would make an interesting OP. So I posted it as one - and discussion ensued.

The paranoia on DU is really out of control - people accusing others of ulterior motives, or being evasive, or having some hidden agenda.

I posted a query in a few replies in threads. I thought the question would prompt a good discussion, so I posted it as an OP. I'm pretty sure that's what a discussion board is for. If you find that to be somehow suspect, maybe you should rethink your own attitude.

[KT2000]

22. Well said! n/t

[randome]

25. There is a lot of parsing going on about this event.

To be honest, anyone giving a speech on just about any subject should be prepared to be greeted by a protester, regardless of the topic.

And Michelle Obama was prepared and handled the situation superbly.

There doesn't need to be a 'right' answer to this, IMO. It is what it is. The protester made her viewpoint known and Obama looked superb.

What more really needs to be said?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Buzz Clik]

26. No. I don't like heckling of any kind.

I'm not much help in your query.

[ReRe]

28. K&R

...Look it... How anyone, especially someone who calls him/herself a Democrat, (but hell, even a brain-dead Teapartier), could stand up and heckle Michelle Obama, is way beyond my ability to understand. If the lady was determined to get a message to her, she could have written a letter and handed it to one of her SS guys. That would have gone allot farther than heckling her. Hell, she might even have done her cause damage by behaving that way. Bad judgement, bad judgement. Not even Madea Benjamin would have done that. Can anyone remember other First Ladies being heckled during a speech?

[Historic NY]

30. It unfortunate some groups believe in gonzo politics........

with manafestos, mandates and demmands. The voting booth means nothing unless they get their unicorns........perhaps they should start their own unicorn party or see if another party will take them under their wing.

[freshwest]

35. They'd have more crediblity with me if they encouraged people to vote. Otherwise, it's all magic...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. HTH....

[Summer Hathaway]

32. Your point being exactly what? n/t

[freshwest]

36. Had a colorful graphic burning up space on the hard drive? I dunno. Anyway, good question.

There is a logic to it, but it's not really PC, maybe that's why it's not working. It might even be considered inappropriate. Since I'm not one of those you replied to I can't answer for them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. Don't take this place too seriously....

There are people here that play the game for sport and we really need to do our own version of this chart.

We have people here that act like caring for the forests means you MUST be for killing the whales. They will then launch an education course on whales as if you never knew there were big animals in a place called the "ocean" which you obviously never heard of since you have your head stuck in the woods.

[Summer Hathaway]

48. Not to worry.

I stopped taking this place seriously a very long time ago.

[boilerbabe]

34. wow. that you all are *still* going on and on about this is interesting. nt

[Summer Hathaway]

37. I have posted

five replies in other threads on this topic.

If that constitutes "still going on and on" about something, you obviously don't hang around here much.

[Zorra]

38. "Hey, girlfriend, why don't you ask your hubby to issue an EO mandating that half the defense

budget be taken from the MIC criminals it supports and the money used to feed hungry kids?"


Next time Mrs. Obama speaks out advocating for LGBT rights, I totally hope someone brings that scenario up.

I can tell it's hard for you as a straight, and, judging from your posts, relatively conservative member of the dominant culture, to empathize, and to understand and even care why we who have been designated second class citizens by your dominant culture might do everything we possibly can to gain equality, out of our ongoing frustration and sadness at the continuing discrimination and inequality we face every day.

There's no reason for us not to have equal rights, and the dismissive attitude of some regarding our situation is sad and sickening; same shit, different day.

If you had the capacity to understand what it is like to be in our shoes, you would not be posting about this issue so smugly and condescendingly.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Well, there is everything you said and...

...the fact that the OP is bullshit and filled with "truthiness goodness." She asked 4 (four posters on DU is now "several" ?!) posters questions that might be similar to what she claims she asked in her OP, only one was gay...me. Only one responded...ME (my only post on DU for the day, except for posts in MIRT which don't show when searching my posts)! One poster can't responds because the thread was locked out by an OP self-delete. Interestingly enough, besides being the only gay person asked, from what I can tell, I am also the only one who doesn't support heckling as a productive manner of protest. Funny, huh?

ETA: I was mistaken. I did have other posts, the first search was truncated. But, it was the first response upon returning to DU.

[Summer Hathaway]

41. So sorry.

I had no idea I was obligated to ask my question of only specific, individual 'gays'. I asked the question of those who were championing Sturtz as a hero for having spoken out - I did not inquire as to their personal sexual orientation. I didn't think that was any of my business, nor germane to the query.

Again, the topic is: Whether it is appropriate to interrupt a FLOTUS speech in order to change the subject depending on the subject one wants it to be changed to, or whether such behavior is out-of-bounds regardless of the topic.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. But the point is you didn't ask several DUer's...you asked FOUR.

You also DID NOT ask the question in your OP as you claim!

I asked the question of those who were championing Sturtz as a hero for having spoken out -

RIGHT NOW...find the post where I "championed Sturtz. I dare you! Do it!

Whether it is appropriate to interrupt a FLOTUS speech in order to change the subject depending on the subject one wants it to be changed to, or whether such behavior is out-of-bounds regardless of the topic.

And yet, that isn't what you asked "several" ( ) DU'ers is it? Go ahead, link to every post where you asked this alleged question. Go for it.

[Summer Hathaway]

43. Do you really want to debate

whether 'four' constitutes 'several'? Is that REALLY your point? What is the cut-off for 'several'? Is it two? Maybe six? An even dozen?

"RIGHT NOW...find the post where I "championed Sturtz. I dare you! Do it!"

Where did I say that you 'championed Sturtz'? Why do you think every post is all about YOU personally?

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Oh, you want to play games, huh? Cool by me!

Do you really want to debate
wether 'four' constitutes 'several'? Is that REALLY your point? What is the cut-off for 'several'? Is it two? Maybe six? An even dozen?

Yeah, that's what I want to "debate" with you. Did you miss the other issue? Oh, well, just in case...

You also DID NOT ask the question in your OP as you claim!

Want to respond?

RIGHT NOW...find the post where I "championed Sturtz. I dare you! Do it!"

Where did I say that you 'championed Sturtz'?

More ...um, did you for get you wrote the following?

I asked the question of those who were championing Sturtz as a hero for having spoken out -(post #42)

Um...you asked ME your alleged question, so where did I champion Sturtz?!

Why do you think every post is all about YOU personally?

Um, probably because you are making accusations about me, TO ME...how dare I think this is personal?!

[Summer Hathaway]

45. You insist on making this topic

all about you. It's not.

I didn't make any accusations about YOU. But YOU seem to think that everything is about YOU. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. You accused me of being a 'champion for Sturtz'.

I dared you to prove it...three times...you still haven't!

You claimed you asked several DU'er's:

If Michelle had been addressing the issue of GLBT rights, and had been interrupted by someone insisting that she address the plight of inner-city children instead, would you still condone the heckler as being a 'hero' for attempting to change the subject?

You were asked to prove it! I was one of those you allegedly asked.

You insist on making this topic all about you. It's not.

YOU asked ME the "question." It is about ME, or more accurately, MY RESPONSE. Yet, you keep "jingling keys" hope that people will "look over there" and refuse to respond to the questions posed to you! Why is that?

Here let me help you out...

I have posted replies

to several DUers who have expressed their anger/frustration at the fact that Michelle Obama's speech at a fundraiser, interrupted by Ms. Sturtz who wanted the FLOTUS to speak to GLBT issues instead of addressing the plight of inner-city children, as being demonstrative of being dismissive of GLBT issues.

Thus far, I have had no responses to my query, being: If Michelle had been addressing the issue of GLBT rights, and had been interrupted by someone insisting that she address the plight of inner-city children instead, would you still condone the heckler as being a 'hero' for attempting to change the subject?

That is the original OP. So, who are the "several" DU'ers you asked your question (in bold above)? Where are those posts? Then you claimed:

I asked the question of those who were championing Sturtz as a hero for having spoken out

Where is the proof that I am one of those posters, given you asked my your alledged question in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=27464 (to which I did respond)!

[Summer Hathaway]

47. And BTW ...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/several:

"Definition of several, determiner & pronoun: more than two but not many."

I'd say that 'four' is definitely "more than two, but not many". Care to dispute that definition?

[Behind the Aegis]

50. LOL! A reminder>

YOU:

Do you really want to debate whether 'four' constitutes 'several'? Is that REALLY your point? What is the cut-off for 'several'? Is it two? Maybe six? An even dozen?

MY RESPONSE:

Yeah, that's what I want to "debate" with you. Did you miss the other issue? Oh, well, just in case...

Did you not understand the use of was an indication your use of "several" was not the "issue of debate?" I only pointed it out because you claimed "four was several" on a site with over 100,000 posters. I thought it was funny.

[Summer Hathaway]

51. If you honestly believe

that there are "over 100,000 posters" active on this site, you are truly naive.

And if you believe that the definition of 'several' fluctuates with how many posters there are on a website, you are truly ignorant.

As much as you want my OP to be all about YOU, it isn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. LOL! More? Really?

I said NOTHING about "active" posters on this site. But, it explains your personal attacks...how surprising. I think it is funny that someone who was claiming I wanted to dispute the meaning of "several" is actually going on and on about it. Your false accusations are racking up by the post. I can guess why.

So, why don't you show the several posters to whom you asked questions?

Show the post where I "championed Sturtz" as you have claimed.

[Summer Hathaway]

54. I have little patience

for this kind of round-about rhetoric - actually, I have NO patience for it.

Please feel free to discuss whatever it is you are intent on discussing amongst yourself. You seem to be the only person interested in the topic - whatever the topic is. Or was. Or will be.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. You seem to not want to provide proof of your claims in YOUR OP!

A real head scratcher. OK, not really.

Can't back up your claims, re-direct. Good for you.

[Summer Hathaway]

57. I posed a question in my OP ...

being: "If Michelle had been addressing the issue of GLBT rights, and had been interrupted by someone insisting that she address the plight of inner-city children instead, would you still condone the heckler as being a 'hero' for attempting to change the subject?"

You can choose to answer the question, or not.

If you choose not to answer the question posed, but would prefer to change the subject to what YOU want to discuss, I suggest you post an OP of your own.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. Again? More deception?

No, you DID NOT pose a question in your OP. You claimed you had posed that question to "several DU'er's" and were not answered.

I have posted replies to several DUers who have expressed their anger/frustration at the fact that Michelle Obama's speech at a fundraiser, interrupted by Ms. Sturtz who wanted the FLOTUS to speak to GLBT issues instead of addressing the plight of inner-city children, as being demonstrative of being dismissive of GLBT issues.

Thus far, I have had no responses to my query,

You can choose to answer the question, or not.

I did! And you fucking know I did because you responded to my response!

Your alleged asking of the question in OP: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=27464)

My response: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=27526)

YOUR response: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=27531)

My response: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=27536)

If you choose not to answer the question posed, but would prefer to change the subject to what YOU want to discuss, I suggest you post an OP of your own.

That would be YOU, not me.

[Summer Hathaway]

59. The links you have provided

go to another OP discussion, not mine.

Again, if you wish to change the topic being discussed on THIS thread, post your own OP.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. It goes to what you stated in THIS OP.

There is no change of topic except from YOU!

[Summer Hathaway]

62. Your desperate cry for attention

has been duly noted.

Now go start your own OP about how that cry is being ignored.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. Or better yet...back up your fucking claims in your OP.

Oh, that might prove you weren't....

[Summer Hathaway]

40. The issue I am posting about

is not the legitimacy of GLBT issues, but about whether interrupting a FLOTUS speech on one topic is appropriate in order to bring an entirely different topic to the forefront, depending on the topic.

Had Michelle been interrupted by someone insisting she address environmental concerns instead of inner-city kids, there would be some DUers who might applaud that interruption. Does that make it right, or productive?

My point is that attempting to highjack a speech about one valid problem in order to bring attention to a different valid problem is behavior that should be judged on its own, and NOT on whether one believes that one problem somehow trumps another in 'importance'.

"I can tell it's hard for you as a straight, and, judging from your posts, relatively conservative member of the dominant culture ..."

All I can say to that is: What you don't know about me is a lot.

[Number23]

64. "Hey girlfriend..." the fact that some think that's a "cute" way of talking to the FLOTUS is

just...precious. I'm sure she'd think so as well.

[snooper2]

77. truthy to power?

I always post that based on number of sub-threads created by specific reply

[great white snark]

52. K&R

[sibelian]

56. Excellent question...

I think the heckler was being really silly.

[MrScorpio]

61. Excellent point

But we both know that, to some, their own agenda needs to addressed first and foremost, to the exclusion of anything that does not address those interests.

[11 Bravo]

67. And if anyone has doubts as to the truth of that, they need only look upthread!

The heckler was rude. Period. Full stop. Yet there are still those who refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.

[graham4anything]

63. This is 100% META.Calling out other DU'ers is META.

[Summer Hathaway]

91. Can you please point out

where my OP 'called out other DUers'?

I said that I'd posted a query in several replies to OPs on this topic, and that no one chose to respond. So I posted the same query in my own OP, believing it might prompt some interesting discussion - which it did.

How does that constitute calling anyone out? Or is this just another manifestation of the paranoia that is running rampant on DU, where every post is suspect, where every comment is deemed demonstrative of some hidden agenda designed to undermine some individuals, some group, some idealogy, some expression of opinion?

Jesus Murphy - this place is quickly becoming ParanoiaUnderground, where EVERY poster is suspect, and EVERY OP is a 'call out' of everyone else - real or imagined. And the fact that the difference between 'real' and 'imagined' no longer exists in the minds of many posters here speaks for itself.

[idwiyo]

66. Links to where you posted your questions?

[Safetykitten]

68. I think the "heckler", or actually citizen is/was quite within their rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Were are the links supporting your claims? Unsupported assertions do not impress me

Particularly out of posters I am not prone to trust. Understand? You have a case to make, you need to make a fucking case, because your testimony alone is not sufficient and the fact that you think it is is one of the factors that means it is not.
I call your OP gossip, because it is without supporting facts and when corrected in this thread you carried on like mad but never offered any support for your claims, claims against others require support, or they are just smears. Posters I trust challenged your statements about them personally, and you failed to support your accusations. Directly asked and you could not produce.
Big thumbs down on this latest attempt to sew divisions.

[Summer Hathaway]

71. Links to what?

I am not 'asserting' anything - I am posing a question.

I am not trying to 'make a case' - I am posing a question.

I am not 'giving testimony' - I am posing a question.

Posing a question now constitutes 'gossip'?

Claims against others? What claims? I mentioned that I'd posted the same question in other threads on this topic, but no one had responded to those posts. So I posed the same question in an OP.

I am sure that you know that people sometimes post replies in a thread that include a question that no one chooses to respond to. That sometimes leads a poster to start a separate OP on the topic.

It would seem obvious at this point that your reading comprehension needs some work.

I mentioned in passing that I'd posted the question on other threads - which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION POSED in this OP.

Is that simple enough for you?

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Yeah, it's my reading comprehension that is the problem.

Congratulations, you take the cake and eat it too!

[Summer Hathaway]

89. Well, at least you admit it.

That's always the first step.

[LWolf]

70. If it had been a Republican speaking

and someone interrupted to insist that he address GOP determination to degrade labor standards, would you criticize the heckler for being rude?

[Summer Hathaway]

72. That is far too vague a question

to be answered.

And my point has nothing to do with (D)s or (R)s. It has to do with people finding a heckler's interruption acceptable or not, depending not on the behavior itself, but on the topic being interrupted.

e.g. If you're passionate about climate change concerns, and someone is giving a speech on that topic and they are interrupted/heckled by someone wanting them to address gun control instead, would you be upset? Now turn it around: the speech being interrupted is on gun control, and the speaker is interrupted by someone who wants them to address climate change concerns - do you see things differently because the issue you want to hear about is being pushed forward?

After reading many posts here yesterday on this incident, it seems that many people thought Ms. Sturtz's behavior was acceptable because she was raising a topic they are passionate about. That's why I posed the question as I did: If Ms. Obama was in the middle of a speech about GLBT rights, and someone interrupted that speech, would they still condone Ms. Sturtz's behavior?

[LWolf]

74. I don't think it's vague at all.

Some people, including you, are offended that Michelle Obama got challenged by someone in her audience.

I asked if those same people, including you, would be offended if it had been a Republican who was challenged. Turn it around. Are you offended if it is a Republican instead of Michelle Obama or another Democrat?

Straightforward and to the point. Not vague.

Apparently you don't have an answer.

[Summer Hathaway]

75. I said your question was too vague

in that it seemed to be leading into too many possible variations, etc.

I am not 'offended' because Michelle was 'challenged' by someone in the audience. Interrupting her speech on one topic in order to insist she address a different topic is not a 'challenge'. It is extremely rude behavior.

Michelle was speaking on an important topic, the plight of inner-city children. She was an invited speaker; Ms. Sturtz was not. Those attending came to hear what Michelle had to say, not to hear what Ms. Sturtz had to say.

Why should anyone in those circumstances be interrupted, (D) or (R)? If Laura Bush were speaking about drug addiction, for example, at a fundraiser, would it be appropriate for someone in the audience to interrupt her and insist she speak about something else entirely?

I don't know about you, but if I pay for tickets to see a performance of "Romeo & Juliette", I would consider it extremely rude for an audience member to step on stage and yell at the actors, "No, do 'Hamlet' instead!"

[LWolf]

78. The question is pretty simple.

I'm not asking you about your feelings about Michelle Obama being interrupted. I already know what you thought of that. I know what many at DU think about that, since it seems to be a hot button at the moment. I haven't weighed in one way or another about M.O., and I don't intend to. My only interest is in whether you, since it was your post I responded to, extend your position to all, or reserve it for Michelle Obama and other Democrats.

I asked if you would be similarly offended if the person who was similarly challenged, or interrupted, was a Republican. What don't you get about that very specific, not-at-all vague question?

[Summer Hathaway]

79. It's right there in my previous reply to you ...

"Why should anyone in those circumstances be interrupted, (D) or (R)? If Laura Bush were speaking about drug addiction, for example, at a fundraiser, would it be appropriate for someone in the audience to interrupt her and insist she speak about something else entirely?"

Last I heard, Laura Bush is still a Republican.

[LWolf]

80. Good answer.

Sorry I missed it in all the text about M.O..

That is, of course, the answer I was looking for.

[BlueJazz]

76. I stand with you..Summer Hathaway.

[bvar22]

83. You posted "replies to several" anonymous posters on a Public Discussion Board,

demanding a response from them,
and you are all bent all out of shape because they ignored your demands?


And it turns out that it was FOUR posts demanding a response,
and ONE of them actually responded,

AND you decide this is enough to merit a Victim Post in General Discussion
speculating about the Character Deficiencies of the three (3) DUers who didn't respond to you?

AND you are joined by the 40 or so perpetual victims who love to publicly prostrate themselves at the foot of the Martyr's Cross wailing about all the other hypocrites who spoil their lives of righteousness??!!!


Maybe there are other reasons WHY some (3) ignored you besides the smears of "Hypocrites" and Haters that the perpetual chorus tossed up in this thread.

Maybe:

*they have something better to do?

*maybe they don't care WHAT you think?

*maybe they have you on "Ignore"?

*maybe they aren't Logged On?

*maybe they don't think responding to you is worth their time and wear on the fingers?

*maybe they resent your entitled, caustic, judgemental attitude?

...I could go on, but you get the picture.

Demanding or expecting a response from someone on an anonymous Discussion Board,
[font size=3]or in real life,[/font] is a symptom of poor boundaries,
and a great favorite of abusers.

[Summer Hathaway]

85. Where you ever got the idea

that I was demanding responses, or even expecting them, is beyond me.

A 'victim post'? Another fabrication pulled out of your own rear-end. There was nothing of the 'victim' in saying I'd posted the query as part of my replies on threads about the topic at hand. I did not say I expected a response, or that anyone was obligated to make one.

No one chose to answer the question. But after thinking about it, I thought it would make for good discussion. So I posted it as an OP. And as you can see for yourself, it did cause some discussion among posters. Prompting discussion or debate - that's pretty much what a discussion board is for.

You've been here way longer than I have. And you know that people pose questions in their replies to threads all the time: "What do you think this news means for 2014?" "Does anyone here think so-and-so would be a great pick for the next SCOTUS justice?" "If Hillary runs, who should she tap as VP?"

Sometimes these queries are answered, sometimes not. Sometimes whole side discussions on the question raised ensue. And sometimes someone will repost the question as a stand-alone OP, if they think it would make for interesting discussion.

Now that you've made a complete jackass out of yourself by ranting about something that never happened, you might want to go searching for any links to where I "demanded" that anyone respond to my query - and that should keep you busy for a very long time, being as there are no such posts.

Though not a prolific poster on this board, I have posted hundreds of responses on threads that have never been responded to. That's pretty commonplace - here and on the other boards I participate on.

I have been posting on message boards for many, many years, my friend. And I am well aware of how they work. Your assumptions are so far off the mark, it is truly laughable.

I think most people who frequent message boards, especially political boards, know that people sometimes reply back to you, and sometimes they don't. And no one takes offense at it, or thinks it's unusual in the least. Getting a reply is nice; but never expected by anyone who has been doing this for any amount of time.

But perhaps YOU do. Maybe that's why you were so quick to get your knickers in a twist, and felt compelled to make ridiculous assumptions and build a scenario around that idea. Perhaps you feel that you're not getting the attention you deserve.

But please try and keep your delusions to yourself, instead of projecting them onto others.

[Summer Hathaway]

90. Had to come back to add this ...

after it was pointed out to me:

"AND you decide this is enough to merit a Victim Post in General Discussion
speculating about the Character Deficiencies of the three (3) DUers who didn't respond to you?"

Care to point out where my OP commented on 'the character deficiencies' of DUers who didn't respond to me? Or where I commented at all about those who didn't respond, or where I opined on their character?

"AND you are joined by the 40 or so perpetual victims who love to publicly prostrate themselves at the foot of the Martyr's Cross wailing about all the other hypocrites who spoil their lives of righteousness??!!!"

Now THAT is a perfect example of what you've accused me of, i.e. you are pointing out the 'character deficiencies' of forty or so people who replied to this thread and expressed their opinion on the matter as being 'perpetual victims'.

I think you owe all of them an apology - which, of course, won't be forthcoming, because you are too busy projecting your own shortcomings onto others.

Here's a suggestion: The next time you want to accuse someone of doing something, and you then do exactly what you're accusing them of yourself, you might want to think it through before posting. It might just save you from looking like a jackass.

[bvar22]

93. I remain unconvinced.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Your furious and erratic Tap Dancing leads me to believe I struck a nerve.

3 people ignored your demand for a response in an Open Forum on an Anonymous Discussion Board, and you decide this is worth an OP detailing your personal problems ?

It is you who owes DU an apology.

[Summer Hathaway]

95. You DO understand

that people can actually read what you've posted?

You were asked to provide links to my 'demands' for a response. You haven't provided them - that's because they don't exist.

Anyone here can search my posts and see for themselves that you've been lying about that - and yet you persist in lying.

You have stated that my OP contains 'speculation about the character deficiencies of the three DUers who didn't respond' to me. Again, you DO understand that anyone here can READ the OP for themselves - and immediately see that you're lying about what it says?

You have characterized those who have posted on this thread as 'perpetual victims' - which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Does expressing one's opinion on an incident involving the FLOTUS and a heckler make someone a 'victim'?

For some reason, you obviously want to just keep digging yourself in deeper. You've been caught lying, and anyone reading this thread can plainly see that.

Maybe you just WANT to come off as a jackass - and if that is your goal, you're doing a great job at it.

[bvar22]

97. If you didn't feel entitled to a response from them,

....then there really is no point to your whiny OP
beyond sewing your imagined injury on your breast,
and hoping to gather a few perpetual mourners at the foot of your cross to share your grief and join you in bemoaning the injustice and hypocrisy of all those (3) posters who probably just laughed at you.

Have you checked to see how many DUers have you on "Ignore"?

[Summer Hathaway]

98. Keep diggin' ...

[bvar22]

99. I'm still not convinced.

As an anonymous poster on a public discussion board,
you owe me an explanation for you behavior.

I may just be forced to post a Copy Cat OP about your evasions and callousness.

[Summer Hathaway]

100. Go right ahead.

You've already made an ass of yourself in this thread. If you want to do so on a more attention-getting level, have at it.

"As an anonymous poster on a public discussion board, you owe me an explanation for you behavior."

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Link]

84. Since the Obama's so recently evolved to support gay rights...

I don't think it is realistic to hear a sincere speech on the subject from her. This is a fantasy exercise.

[Summer Hathaway]

86. It was meant to be a hypothetical question

the point being: Do we judge hecklers in a situation like this differently depending on the issue they are demanding be addressed, or strictly on their behavior regardless of the issue?

I think it makes for some interesting discussion, as well as introspection.

Your mileage may vary.

[rug]

94. Except she was not there promoting social change; she was collecting money.

[Summer Hathaway]

96. Shouldn't this be in LBN?

"FLOTUS attends Fundrasier - and attempts to RAISE FUNDS!!!"

[rug]

101. "And is affronted by someone asking about civil rights!!!"

"Dozens on DU slam the impertinent protester interrupting donors from writing their checks!!!"

[Summer Hathaway]

102. Sturtz did not interrupt donors writing checks.

She interrupted the FLOTUS when she was in the middle of speaking to the attendees, as she had been invited to do.

Ms. Strurtz was not 'asking about civil rights'. She demanded that Michelle stop speaking on one topic and address what she wanted discussed instead.

Sturtz could have approached Michelle before her speech, or afterwards. Instead, she chose to interrupt, act rudely, and as a result she was told to leave - thereby drawing negative publicity to an important issue.

This fundraiser was a private event; people paid to attend and hear Michelle speak.

Had Ms. Strurtz been invited to speak at a fundraiser collecting money for the advancement of GLBT rights, and had been interrupted by a heckler who demanded she address another topic instead - environmental concerns, social security, whatever - I would be equally appalled at the behavior of the heckler.

[rug]

103. That's right. They paid beforehand.

All she did was interrupt their paid facetime.

[Summer Hathaway]

104. Characterize it

any way you wish. If they 'paid for facetime', they were entitled to have it.

If they paid to hear what Michelle had to say, they were entitled to hear it.

No one paid, nor attended, to have facetime with Ms. Sturtz, nor to hear what she had to say.

As I pointed out to someone else on this thread, when I pay for tickets to see a play, that's what I've paid for - not to have an audience member yell at the actors on stage, and demand they perform something else.

Again I would repeat the question posed in the OP: If Michelle had been speaking about GLBT rights, and was interrupted by someone who demanded she address another topic instead, would your opinion of the heckler be different?

[rug]

106. Probably not. But then I don't have a hierarchy of civil rights.

[Summer Hathaway]

107. It has nothing to do with

"a hierarchy of civil rights" - nothing.

If one pays to attend a private event and to hear a particular speaker, a heckler does not have a "right" to interrupt the proceedings and demand that their topic be addressed.

It's pretty simple stuff. Ms. Sturtz had no "right" to interrupt an invited speaker at a private event - any more than she'd have a "right" to interrupt a performance of a play that others had paid to see.

[treestar]

105. They would not

In fact there, the heckler would be called a bigot who does not respect gay rights.