I have been on DU for almost nine years now.

[MineralMan]

Not as long as some, of course, but longer than I've been on any other discussion forum. I'm a very active participant and have a very good memory. I love this discussion site, but not always everyone on it.

In those nine years or so, I've seen a number of people driven off this site, which has always made me cringe. I've even been a target a few times, but have always avoided "losing it" and am still here. I'm a veteran of discussion forums, beginning with the old Politics forum on CompuServe in the 80s.

I've seen people driven off from every forum I've been part of. It's a shame every time, except in a very few cases. On each forum, vulnerable people or people with minority viewpoints are ganged up on until they can no longer stay. Typically, they are provoked into exploding and then are banned.

After over 98,000+ posts here, I'm here to stay. I'm going nowhere. I'll probably see others driven off in the future, as I have in the past. With very few exceptions, I'll be sad when it happens. I wish such things would not happen. Truly I do. I remember each instance and what caused it.

My hope is to one day find a place where that does not occur. I'd like it to be this place.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[Skidmore]

2. Thanks, MM.

Sad that this needs to be said.

[Stuart G]

3. Thank You for your service...

[The Wielding Truth]

4. MineralMan, I have the same feelings about DU and those who were driven off because of some

minor difference that is so jumped upon that it makes them want to defend themselves and then they get booted or they can't take being stifled so they leave. It's so sad when we need to hear different voices from time to time. Although there has to be guidelines to keep things civil I would hope that there would be a way to give our feisty but honest DUers a chance to come back.

[Aristus]

5. I've had DU friends driven away so hard that I've never seen them again, on any other

form of social media.

Heartbreaking.

This place was created as a haven for liberals wanting to communicate with fellow liberals.

But trolls always get in, and make their targets utterly miserable.

Like you, MineralMan, I'm not going anywhere. But I sure miss my departed friends...

[Comatose Sphagetti]

6. "...vulnerable people or people with minority viewpoints are ganged up on..."

Seen it, felt it.
Never fails to shock me... always considered progressives somehow "above" that sort of thing.

[aikoaiko]

7. I don't think your Shangri-La will be here.

It's just not possible to have a large group of passionate and thoughtful people.

[MineralMan]

8. You may well be right,

But that's what I wanted to say this evening.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Thanks. K&R

I've seen the wolf packs in action and identified a few of the members. I've placed them on a Jury Blacklist. And while being sent to jury for quite a few posts, and getting rightfully nailed on some snarky ones, they wolf packs have been unable to silence me.

It got close a few times, before plotting the members, where I was about to jump ship myself.

As an EFF donor member, this type of action appalls me. I've rarely flagged posts, or voted to ban one, unless there was an egregious violation of the TOS. It seems there are some who like to drop the hammer over any counter thought.

[sharedvalues]

32. I'm with you. Feel free to DM me if you need help.

[LongTomH]

66. Same here! I've had a few posts hidden that seem positively innocous compared to others.

..and yes, sometimes I'm still tempted to jump ship.

[MLAA]

10. It needed to be said 🙂

[AJT]

11. Thank you for this.....I've felt it myself but held on.

[chillfactor]

12. thank you MineralMan....

I always love your posts...you articulate thoughts much better than I could ever do. And I agree...some DUers have chased good people, smart people off this site and than just plain sucks.

[iamateacher]

13. Awesome

Thank you.

[malaise]

14. Ditto

[mythology]

15. That's a rather charitable explanation of things

The person you are referring to acted like a spoiled brat and accused other DUers of being racist without any evidence. Some people are "driven away" not because they are driven away but because they can't fit within the norms of a place. If everybody is allowed to say whatever they want with no consequences, it would in turn drive a different subset of people away.

[MineralMan]

60. I'm not referring to any individual DUer in this post.

Not at all. The post reflects all 9 years of my membership here.

[left-of-center2012]

16. "people with minority viewpoints are ganged up"

And 'alerted' on.

I've had a couple responses to my posts this year saying I should leave,
for not agreeing with the majority viewpoint.

Should we not be a forum where we can discuss differing viewpoints?
Must we all agree, or must those who differ be told they should go elsewhere?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Been there... can't tell you how many times. (Don't give em the satisfaction.)

[bdamomma]

20. Sad that this kind of stuff

happens here, it really shouldn't. We are a diverse group of people and no one should "bullied" out of here with different opinions or viewpoints. I do like being "schooled" here, you can really learn a lot about certain events. MM I want to give you this which we need more of nowadays.

[bathroommonkey76]

29. Someone alerted me a few days ago

for calling a person "chubby"- The person's screenname was "ChubbyMcGhee".

I think I have been targeted for calling out the people involved with the Corey Baker GoFundMe scam. Those people are still on here, I believe.

[left-of-center2012]

56. Was the alert voted up or down? n/t

[bathroommonkey76]

57. Well, they deleted my post. haha

[riderinthestorm]

17. Bravenak and her pack did their best to drive me off

I too remember.

Fuck them. Some folks are determined to create strife and divisiveness. It's not a "shame every time". Sometimes they've so blatantly broken site rules it strains credulity why they're still allowed to post ($$).

Bravenak has been ffr'd here, banned for anti-Semitism on Dkos, suspended on Twitter, banned on reddit, and caught posting anti-Semitism on right-wing sites. Sometimes a troll really is a troll.

12 years here fyi.

[pintobean]

24. +1.

13.5 years here.

[sharedvalues]

33. "Stronger together". United is better than divided

and divisiveness is poisonous to community.

[still_one]

35. So that was only done by one person and one side. Thank you for your objectivity

[Ninsianna]

38. Indeed, you can usually tell the trolls.

They're the ones being all divisive by telling people on this board to go fuck themselves, some of them have a great deal of longevity. I believe the Cavers were bragging about how they've aged their accounts. Sometimes a troll really does out themselves, when they do, believe them.

[seaglass]

68. Oh for gd's sake, you wrote in Bernie in the GE and as far as I've seen have expressed no regret.

It's one thing to disagree and be an ally of members of this board, it's another to pretend to be an ally.

From JPR:

> Rider replied to the topic Something Very Strange Is Happening. in the forum General Discussion Tuesday, Nov 22, 2016, 10:01am UTC
>
> Righteous rant Sabrina. I wrote in Bernie because I truly believed he was the best candidate and the true winner
>
>
>
> Rider replied to the topic Trump has repeatedly called for the execution of Snowden in the forum General Discussion Friday, Nov 11, 2016, 12:14pm UTC
>
> And I can personally attest that you have utterly withdrawn from DU except to host the Bernie Sanders group.
>
> Fyi Autumn I’ve now said out loud that I wrote in Bernie (in IL I had that luxury) but that won’t escape DUers notice. If/when DU gets going, and if Skinner keeps the DNC loyalty enforcers in power, I’m one hide away from being FFRd. Which…[Read more]
>

[R B Garr]

71. Thank you seaglass! I didn't see your post before I responded, but this says

it all. They have a lot of nerve referring to Democrats who voted for Democrats as trolls. Good Lord!

[George II]

73. Wow. Thanks for finding that, seaglass.

[sheshe2]

92. They wrote in Bernie?

WTH! They tossed there vote and gave us trump.

[betsuni]

93. Uh oh. Cat's out of the bag.

[SunSeeker]

95. Wow.

[stevenleser]

96. As Skinner and EarlG have said, people who unrepentantly did not vote Hillary dont belong here

Bravenak, who did vote for Hillary, would have been right to try to run anyone who didn’t off.

[riderinthestorm]

112. Oh ffs, I live in IL. HRC won here by double digits. I like Hillary

I've said it often. I have zero issues with her, I just preferred Bernie - and in this election, and with my location, I could vote my preference. I've also said that those in purple/red states should've voted for her 100%.

Since then I've worked hard to turn 9 local Republican seats Dem. What have you done?

I'm now similarly involved in 6 other local races that we've researched that can be turned from Red to Blue. I was an avid campaign worker for every Dem campaign from Jimmy Carter, to Obama, Duckworth etc

Am I an ally for 2018 or the enemy?

I'm a Bernie Sanders group host. Exactly what would you expect from us? I reiterate, I like Hillary, Obama, Duckworth etc. I live in a solid blue state so my vote was irrelevant.

My issues with bravenak revolved around her deciding I wasn't "black.enough", not election issues at all. She doxxed me.

There are some here who might remember. I will never forget.

Skinner knows where to find me. I'm sure I've been alerted multiple times. I repeat, am I an ally or an enemy?

[stevenleser]

113. If you dont vote for Democratic nominees, youre not an ally.

You chose to take your ball and go home rather than oppose the worst person ever seated in the White House.

You can never assume your state didn’t need your vote. I am sure several folks in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania thought the same thing.

I agree with Skinner and EarlG on their position of whether people who did not vote for Hillary should be welcome here.

[seaglass]

115. I live in MA and it would be really easy for me to sit out a GE if it was all about me, it's not.

I would not consider you an ally. Bernie hasn't ruled out a 2020 run. Whatcha gonna do if he loses again?

Every vote counts. It does say something about our country that Hillary won the popular vote.

[tammywammy]

121. You didn't vote for Hillary then you can go fuck yourself.

Slither back to the JPR cesspool.

[Squinch]

124. Don't even. You wrote in BS's name. I don't give a rat's ass what you think of Hillary.

You contributed to giving us Trump.

Stop trying to justify the fact that you contributed to the mess we are in.

Honestly, I couldn't be more disgusted.

[greatauntoftriplets]

125. Well, you'll always have JPR.

[stevenleser]

128. To that now PPRd poster, as the character of Eva Peron said in the musical Evita

Now go, if you’re able
To somewhere unstable
And stay there
Whip up your hate
in some tottering state
But not here, dear
Is that clear, dear?

[aikoaiko]

130. Sorry to see you go riderinthestorm.

You are a dependable ally.

[stevenleser]

132. I'm not sorry to see anyone go who feels comfortable at JPR. They are not allies. nt

[aikoaiko]

133. Everyone thinks their own purity test is OK.

Even someone who only occasionally votes Democratic can be an ally at the right time and place.

[stevenleser]

134. My test is simple. Did you vote for the one viable candidate in the GE against Trump

If a person says no they can go covfefe themselves.

[aikoaiko]

135. My point exactly.

[stevenleser]

136. And mine as well. nt

[R B Garr]

70. Let me guess. This started in 2015.

[ehrnst]

72. Are you saying that the forum moderators take $$ to reverse a Flagged for Review?

[still_one]

74. You mean with things like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280104210

I remember the "PACK" of will a well known DUer who called President Obama a "POS, used car salesman, and told him to FO", and how his fans were so thrilled with those vile slurs against President Obama.

I remember when a "PACK" justified the use of the "c" word, and other foul names when referring to the Democratic nominee, and how they justified it by saying it was common place in the UK, so that made it "alright"

I could go on, but what is the point

[R B Garr]

75. Great find! The troll Susan Sarandon saying "fuck them"

She's just a nasty, foul-mouthed troll.

Here she is trolling about Nader:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/actors-susan-sarandon-and-tim-robbins-lead-a-nader-2000-citizens-in-picture-id661889

[heaven05]

79. "her pack"???????????????

pack of dogs, wolves, rats....what's a pack related to Bravenak? She was NOT anti-semitic, she was for BLM, which was not the cup of tea for a couple candidates, that's all. She spoke the truth, speaks the truth about white privileged and entitled americans, males most loudly claiming the white privilege, and as is seen, not exclusively. That's ALL she did and is doing, those complaining and minimizing the loudest are the most suspect. Period.

[sheshe2]

91. her pack?

OMFG. Poster called us dogs and that makes the females b***hes.

WTH? I thought this was DU not JPR/DI, guess I was wrong.

[betsuni]

94. +1

[stevenleser]

98. Her pack are those who voted Hillary in the General Election, apparently nt

[JustAnotherGen]

127. I don't know heaven

Maybe it's a black thing that poster wouldn't understand?

[ismnotwasm]

90. .

[melman]

97. Notice how this posts inspires a 15+ post pile-on

That totally proves what it says is true.

[stevenleser]

99. Because it has come out that that person did not vote for Hillary by their own admission

and they brag about it. Per the admins, someone like that does not belong here and they certainly don’t have the standing to pass judgement on someone who voted for Hillary

[melman]

102. What are you even talking about?

"certainly don’t have the standing to pass judgement on someone who voted for Hillary"

What does this mean?

[stevenleser]

104. Post 68 above. nt

[betsuni]

100. So you agree that Democrats are the trolls on Democratic Underground.

Interesting.

[melman]

101. Did not say that

Obviously.

[betsuni]

105. The "pile-on" are those who voted for the Democrat in the election and the "piled-on" didn't.

Yes, you are saying that the trolls and divisive ones are Democrats.

[melman]

106. No I didn't

Sorry. Not going to let you put words in my mouth.

[betsuni]

116. Yes you did. Your words are here for all to see.

Words melt in your mouth, not in your hands.

[Squinch]

110. 12 years here, and it turns out that you are one of the BOBs who gave us Trump.

I agree with your statement that sometimes a troll really is a troll.

[stevenleser]

114. And now they are trying to justify not voting for the Democratic nominee for President

against Trump.

[Scurrilous]

18. @$!# the trolls amd their pile-ons.

[melman]

21. That person wasn't ganged up on and provoked into exploding

That's a narrative preferred by that person's fans, but that doesn't make it reality. It's not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Sometimes when people can't rebut the message they (metaphorically) shoot the messenger

... e.g. drive them off a site.

It shows great weakness on the part of the cyber-bullies.

That's what it is. Cyber-bullying by people who have to band together in groups to accomplish the ugly nefarious goals they are too weak to accomplish individually.

[spanone]

23. you old fart

[MineralMan]

61. I embrace my old fartness, I'll have you know.

I wield it like a sword.

[spanone]

65. as do I

a badge of humor

[milestogo]

25. There's a lot of beating of dead horses.

[Goonch]

26. FlameSuit

[Jarqui]

27. I could not agree more.

Thank you for saying that.

I've been a progressive almost since I was born.
As a young boy, I idolized JFK.
I supported MLK.
I campaigned for JFK
I protested the Vietnam war.
I streaked in protest of Nixon
In the early 70s, I fought for some gay rights in college and won.
In the early 70s, I fought for student housing rights in college and mostly lost - got some moderate concessions.
etc.

I've never supported the GOP.

But you couldn't tell that from my profile because I got banned from here some time ago. The offence was saying Sanders didn't stand much of a chance against Hillary.

This is a democracy. If you've really got a solid platform or policy position, you shouldn't be afraid of criticism from anyone because you'll usually have a good answer or have to deliberate a good point made by someone else - which usually eventually leads to strengthening the policy position.

This place is our kitchen table as Obama described it. Some variance in the opinions is healthy and not boring.

[Jim Beard]

37. That happens to me a lot.

[DFW]

45. You actually got banned for saying that??

I know some Sanders supporters last year were more than a little over the top (some are still obsessing over his every word), and I left for six months because of them, but that really just goes beyond all limits. Of course, I got roundly knocked a few times for a "I heard it's Biden" thread on the day Obama's VP choice was to be announced in 2008. I had some coincidental information in advance, and posted, but couldn't reveal my source. I got zero apologies after my info proved accurate. So, this is, unfortunately, not a new phenomenon here.

I don't visit the site that was created last year by the "I-Hate-Hillary" crowd, but from what I'm told, they dislike diversity, and are not overly fond of reality any more, either. Whether or not that is a true depiction, let us try to do what we can to not deteriorate to that extent.

[Jarqui]

50. I've always supported Dems

I was upset with Johnson over the Vietnam war (but pleased with his efforts for civil rights).
I was way more upset with Nixon for a bunch of reasons - lack of integrity was at the top of the list
I always liked Jimmy Carter and think to this day that he's never got the respect he deserves. His loss was something like Hillary's - I still feel we were cheated.

Couldn't stand Reagan.
Willie Horton ads were the first swift boating theft of the presidency.

I still supported Bill Clinton after NAFTA which I regard as the biggest mistake any US president made in my lifetime (bigger than Vietnam or the Iraq war). I did not like his wife as much because like many, I had problems with her integrity or accuracy of what she said and lacked faith in how genuine she was.

I came into 2007 unsure. I liked Biden but did not know all the candidates. Like many, I thought Hillary was close to a sure thing. I was not a gigantic fan of hers but I would never support the GOP. Up to that point, I never disliked the GOP more than during Bush II years.

Obama blew me away and I had trouble with Clinton and her tactics against during the 2008 campaign.

But Hillary was a pretty good soldier for Obama. She was professional. Didn't seem to lust for the limelight. No sour grapes. She went about her business and worked very hard as Secretary of State.
She stood up to the Bengazi hit job well (though some of the criticism - a much lesser proportion - was warranted).

Coming into 2015, I felt that if Obama could forgive her and back her, then that was something I had to seriously consider and I did. I got on that bandwagon - 100% all in.

In March 2015, she lost me with the email press conference. Like many, I felt she was dishonest about it (and I still feel that way). Integrity is a big deal for me in candidates. That's never been a strength in the public's perception of Hillary and that is based on her own words - she can't blame anyone else for things she said that were not true.

So I was looking at Sanders. I was warming up to him at the time but felt he didn't stand a chance against Hillary and I expressed that. I was immediately banned without explanation. I'd never been banned by a forum before. I appealed twice. No Response. I couldn't believe it. I wound up supporting Sanders. I still like him but do not support him for 2020 - I want someone new.

When Sanders lost, I crawled into a cave because I had serious problems supporting Hillary over the integrity issue. I looked at the 3rd party candidates and couldn't do that. So I was just going to sit it out. As Trump drew closer to Hillary, the thought of him killing Americans by taking away their healthcare pushed me back to holding my nose and supporting Hillary which I did to the bitter end in Nov 2016. I thought Bush II was as bad as I ever felt about a president and then Trump came along ....

When I think of Nixon (messing with Vietnam peace as a candidate), Reagan (messing with Iran hostages as a candidate), Bush I (Willie Horton), Bush II (ballot counting and swift boating Kerry) and now Trump (Russia) - the GOP presidents of my lifetime have always won the office by devious means (voting restrictions, gerrymandering, campaign $, etc on top of that). Johnson, Carter, Clinton & Obama - Dem candidates who won always won fair and square.

If Trump finishes his term, I feel we will have basically been cheated for 32 years of the presidency during my lifetime. The GOP since Eisenhower can't seem to win the office fair and square.

Does someone want to ban me for feeling that way? I would hope not.

[DFW]

51. OK, now I get it.

You weren't banned from DU, just from the Sanders forum. I got banned from that forum before I even knew it was there. I just responded to some post on the home page, and suddenly found myself banned from this forum I never even knew existed. Some nasty character from New Jersey, who was here for the primaries and then disappeared, proudly announced my banning as if they had just arrested number one on the FBI's ten most wanted list. Since I had never intentionally posted on that forum in the first place, I made sure I never even looked at a post from there again. That way, I was never tempted to have anything further to do with them. I was fine with that, and I'm sure they didn't miss me either. There were surely numerous flies in their bathrooms impatiently waiting to have their wings pulled off. As we say in the South, "not my kind of people."

I never met their candidate, so I had no judgement about him one way or the other.

I quite agree with you on the Republican candidates. I have only met Ford and Bush I, They were OK guys, but Bush I didn't blow me away. His son W graduated from the same high school I did, but he was a few years ahead of me, and I was only there for senior year, so I never met him. My dad knew every president since LBJ, and thru to Clinton, and he had some choice stories about most of them. An old journalist colleague of my dad's knew JFK rather well. She used to tell us stories about him, most of which I have since forgotten. She passed away at 93 a few years back, so I can't go back and ask her. I wish I had taped our meetings. She REALLY had some stories to tell, and she NEVER minced words.

[Jarqui]

52. No I was banned - posting ability revoked

To this day, it's never been explained to me. It just happened.

I never met any of them. My folks met Bush I and he was kind of aloof to them. But I did work for a Bush I think tank - on the free trade issue. I refused any compensation - I paid for my own travel - I kind of had to keep my distance some because of how I felt politically. But I felt that since the White House asked, it was the president - not the GOP asking and it was my duty to do my best which I did. They were great debates. In fact, we were eventually successful in convincing them of the heavier downside if they proceeded like Clinton eventually did. As a result, his administration cooled on it. And I'll say this: the group I met with, largely GOP supporters, seemed very sincere in doing what was best for America. I did not feel they were just there to do the bidding of the 1%. There were a couple of pompous assholes but most were good and decent Americans who cared about the country and listened to my concerns - and eventually, the majority seemed to come around to accepting them.

With the present crowd in the GOP, I cannot imagine such a thing would be possible. In the 60s and 70s, I felt that Republicans were largely Americans first. Now, I feel like they're Republicans first.

[DFW]

53. It's definitely not the same mentality in that party.

You could put the Bill of Rights minus the Second Amendment in front of them, and they'd chew you out for peddling "liberal crap."


As for your getting banned--that's really crass. I can't believe the owners of the site would have condoned it, but I think things were getting away from them altogether for a while last year. The site had obviously been monitored for a while. The election day crash was not some coincidental mishap that just came at an inopportune moment.

[Jarqui]

55. It was weird - particularly without explanation.

But after the hacking and now finding out what was going on with the Russians, that could lead to some messed up, hunkering down decisions. Daily Kos had some weird stuff going on too. Mods heads would be spinning under that kind of attack. So I'm not bitter. I just wish someone would have discussed it with me. They would have found out I'm on the same side and have been my entire life.

I've transcended to a place where I think many in the upper echelons of the GOP are evil. 9/11 was one of the most horrific events I've witnessed. The shooting in Las Vegas last night another horrific event. But my fear for the number who will die every year without healthcare because of the evil folks at the top of the GOP is greater. It's not like the genocide of Auschwitz in that you cannot see where the folks are getting gassed and piles of bones and scrawny dead bodies. And the numbers pale in comparison to what the Germans did. But I do feel that snatching healthcare away from millions of Americans is a form of genocide that will kill 1,000 Americans annually for every million who lose their healthcare (according to the studies).

Recently, Chips was allowed to elapse knocking 9 million children off healthcare. The death rates for children without healthcare are probably lower but if they go forward with their actions, thousands of American children will die. I may not be Hillary's biggest fan but I know she supported this program and would never have let this happen - no Dem would.

The nation will morn the 50 or more slaughtered in Las Vegas and the news media will be consumed by it, while on the back pages, these assholes are letting children die quietly where few will notice as they cannot be easily shown on national TV because we have to jump to reacting to Trump's latest stupid tweets.

To me, the healthcare debate has always been this: how many Americans will the GOP approach to healthcare kill? These people don't even get a death panel or the death panel they're getting are the GOP legislators in Congress and the White House.

Sorry. Off topic rant.

[DFW]

58. It's OK

I have to fight for my own health care and that of the one daughter I have living in the States.

I keep my Blue Cross although they refuse almost every claim I submit, but the Germans quoted me $36,000 a year to insure me, due to a pre-existing condition. My wife is a German citizen, and is covered here, although I had to jump in for €700 a month to cover her for the five years from when she took early retirement and now, when she has turned 65. Don't believe all the posts that tell you Germany is a single payer paradise. That claim belongs in the same category as the tooth fairy and the Great Pumpkin. My other daughter works in Germany and is a German citizen (they both are dual citizens), and so is covered by her job in Frankfurt.

[Jarqui]

64. My US family enjoys care from Johns Hopkins. My brother in law works there.

My Canadian family (my wife is Canadian and my kids were born there) enjoys the Canadian system.

I'm currently working in the Caribbean and paying general coverage as I go here. There are some good doctors here but the facilities and drug availability is lacking for example.

To me, the Canadian system is the US system at roughly 60-70 cents on the dollar with longer wait times for elective procedures but they cover everyone in single payer. It's hands down better bang for your buck with better results in life expectancy, etc.

If America tried single payer like Canada for one year, America would never go back. Americans would be much more affordable to employ because of the healthcare cost savings so more jobs could come back. etc.

It's a win-win-win for everyone except the insurance companies and the medical folks soaking the system.

In this day and age, to unconscionably let people die without healthcare is a form of political genocide. I am so distressed about it and I almost can't think straight. There is no need for it. It's like racism: the only thing sustaining the current system is widespread ignorance (... and unlike racism, greed).

[DFW]

67. The long waits for non-urgent afflictions scare me. I would have been dead for 13 years now.

In 2004, I suddenly felt a shortness of breath when climbing a hill and had twinges in my shoulder. Since both my dad's parents had died of heart attacks before age 70, I read all I could about symptoms of heart trouble, and I had just had two of them. I called up a cardiologist in the town I now reside in permanently, and asked to come in and be examined. They said they had an appointment free in two months.

I said I was visiting from the USA and would pay immediately. They suddenly had an appointment free that afternoon. When doing the EKG, the doctor said there was surely something odd, and could I come back in 48 hours for a stress-echo test? I said OK, and I did. The guy freaked out at what he saw, said to call my wife and get my ass to a cardiac clinic IMMEDIATELY, and he would call up there so I could be treated the next morning. Sure enough, the next morning, the head cardiac surgeon, Professor Doktor so-and-so looked at my chart and said, clear everything, this guy comes on at noon. The long and short of it was that I had two forward coronary arteries 99% blocked, and might not have survived the massive heart attack that was about to occur any second. He said I was the luckiest man in Europe that day. He explained that he could save 70% of the emergencies that are brought in to him, but they have to be alive first--something I might just as easily not have been. A couple of stents set me back out of the danger zone, and I have tried my level best to stay out of there since this happened in April, 2004.

My symptoms weren't so obvious that one could tell I needed emergency care. They were only caught because I paid to get in to see a doctor immediately. Had I gone the "normal" route, I would have been dead within a week.

[Jarqui]

69. That is not the Canadian system

If you want bigger boobs, that's elective - not a must have.

The one beef I've had in Canada is the wait time for MRIs. If you've got a serious condition, then they get you in. But if you need a knee looked at (ie sports injury), that can be a stupid long wait time - months. To beat that, you agree to go in the middle of the night on short notice and you can get one quicker and free that way (roughly within a week). Otherwise, Canadians will head south of the border to get them. So legit criticism there. But they're not going to let someone die - if they an MRI quick.

If you have shortness of breath like you just described, that is a serious symptom and you go to emergency - a cardiologist's office would typically send you there because emergency have all the equipment and staff to deal with it - and find out how serious quickly

Any doctor could have an airhead receptionist who tries to book you two months out but that is not because the system dictates it - it's because they're an airhead.

In Canada, you walk in anywhere, present your health card and maybe fill out a two page application form and that's it. No more endless forms to get stuff approved, etc. Whatever the doc says you need, you get. No questions asked. No insurance pre-approval. No preexisting conditions issues. You're sick and they treat you no matter what - no mounds of bureaucracy or fighting to get stuff covered. The drug prices are much more reasonable and if you cannot afford them, the provincial government has programs to make sure such people get the drugs they need.

If the US government opted for single payer when Canada did, the country might not have any national debt - saving roughly 40% of healthcare costs per capita for 50 years. The savings for the rest of the country who are not insurers or super expensive medical staff would be staggering. All the labor going into all US made products would be that much cheaper, allowing more sales of US goods and more US jobs. The economic impact is mind-boggling.

[flvegan]

28. Cheers and good tidings to you!

Glad you're still around.

[still_one]

30. There are posts in this thread implying that an undefined minority viewpoint was ganged up on

until those sharing that minority view could no longer stay.

I don't know if people have short memories, or are willfully blotting out what happened, but these so-called "minority viewpoints", were viewpoints that people were disagreeing with each other on. Those who felt they were being "ganged up on", identified themselves as the victim.

It happened on both sides, and each group was as defensive as hell as being the aggrieved party.

In the beginning 2016 on DU, one group outnumbered another group 5 to 1. At the end of 2016, that 5 to 1 ratio disappeared. A large part of that was because the TOS were made explicit with less ambiguity.

There have been those on both sides that have probably been unfairly forced out, and that is sad.

However, as far as I am concerned, anyone who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election, encouraged people to either vote for a third party candidate, or not at all, I say good riddance.

[stevenleser]

103. Not to mention, the minority that says they were Ganged up on were 80% of DUers

Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)

And all that implies regarding the systems here.

[betsuni]

108. Took me a few more seconds than it should to realize "Ganges up on"

was auto-correct for "ganged up on."

[Yupster]

31. 98,000

You're a stud. Congrats.

I've been here 15 years and only have about 14,000. Congrats.

[grantcart]

109. Not sure why but I found your reply very funny.

[Xolodno]

34. I treat every post I make...

...as the last one.

Sometimes they are joking, other times serious, and....so on. It's nice to be part of a community, albeit, an online one. However, this isn't the only community I belong to and its hardly an important one. So if I got the boot...I could care less.

I've observed other online communities...and once the majority got rid of the "agitators"...they turned against each other and doomed the site. Of course those who held a minority view were called "trolls"...its the easy thing to do. Not so easy, distinguishing an actual troll to someone who is genuine. And that's where the troll wins...

[First Speaker]

36. I have all sorts of heterodox opinions--even a few heretical ones...

...none of which I have the slightest intention of ever revealing here at DU. For just the reasons you state. I only reply to, or begin, threads that I *know* will be "safe". There are whole categories of topics here that I'd never dream of participating in, because I know what would happen. A shame, isn't it?

[smirkymonkey]

39. Thanks Mineral Man.

I have been here since the Bush years. My posts don't reflect it, I have mostly done a lot of reading, but I have always appreciated your posts. This place has saved my sanity. I don't know what I what have done without it. I really think I would have gone mad without having found a community of like minded souls.

Thank you all for this place.

[Scruffy1]

40. I love reading your posts.

No, I don't post a lot, but certainly learn a lot from du members. Personally I think it is childish to get into on line arguments. No one ever one an argument. I have strong politcal beliefs that are the results of decades of reading,watching and being involved in politics. Othermembers might havr a different view points and we all could do better at respecting people we do not agree with. These are voices we can learn from. The Democratic Party has had schisms my whole life, but actually is much more united than they were when I was young and the Democrats had to rely on the Southern Bloc for a majority.
I get called to jury duty far too often. It seems like the internet brings out a snarkiness not found in every day person to person dealings.This ight is not huge, but I thinkit is very influential and I really miss a lot of people who have been driven off, but I think we will all be out in full force and need to learn to be more inclusive if we want to take back the house. Like you, I live in a very safe Democratic stronghold, and feel pretty helpless having very little to with swing districts, but I do what i can.
So, thanks from the other side of the river and keep posting.

[Submariner]

41. I've been on DU since 2001 and I have more problems with the thought police

today than ever before. One particularly snotty thought cop, who only joined a couple of years ago, posted a smilie waving at me as she alerted me and got me near banned. What a sleaze. There are some single minded purists running amuck, so be careful of thinking too far outside the box of the narrow minded.

[SoCalDem]

43. Amen.. I miss the good old days too

We used to discuss..and were rarely, if ever, attacked.. I read daily, but don't post much anymore.. Things are sometimes too ghastly to contemplate.. I remember how terrible we all felt in early 2001 when GW took over, but things are worse now..

[Hekate]

42. Always glad to read your posts, MM. I bailed twice, taking grateful refuge in spinoff groups...

The first time I was being alert-stalked and thought I'd never return. But after a couple of years I did. Then I knew I'd probably never leave permanently. The second time was when we were overrun with trolls claiming to be (you know who) supporters.

Each time I outlasted the worst of them. Each time I came back for the community, and for people who are my friends.

When DU was hacked last November, I emailed Skinner and told him that DU is important, and what he does is important. It's true. And the people who choose to participate do the rest.

[WinkyDink]

44. I'd like others to agree with me, because....ego. What I cannot abide is being misunderstood,

either through someone's poor reading comprehension or incorrect assumptions of me.

I've been here since before Dubya. There have been cliques, outsiders, newbies, trolls, hit and runs, "VIPs," and every other type of poster.

If people leave, then they do.

[DFW]

46. One of the real tricks seems to be the hardest to learn

And that is: don't treat every opposing view/questioning of posted information as a direct personal insult, even if it affects you as an insult to your intelligence.

We all come from different backgrounds (that was the whole idea, wasn't it?) with a general common cause. If someone thinks they have some fact they are sure of, and someone else thinks they are wrong, there are two ways to go about disagreeing. There is the "I heard differently/that has not been my experience, and here is how I see it" approach. Then there is the "no, you idiot, you have got your head stuck all the way up your ass, and I haven't got the time or the patience to set you straight" approach. If you have to ponder over which one stands a better chance of continued civil discussion, then I think you might be on the wrong site.

[cwydro]

47. Perfectly put.

People often take disagreement as a personal affront.

And then trouble ensues.

[DFW]

48. Too many people think we all hatched from the same egg.

And they don't seem to get that it's OK if we didn't.

[cwydro]

49. Exactly.

Apparently, some think only their viewpoint is a valid one.

Perplexing.

[MineralMan]

63. Everyone on DU has opinions, and should be able to express them.

If I disagree, I might reply to a poster, but I can't quibble with someone holding a different opinion than I hold. If facts are incorrect, then I might point that out, but I'm not going to call someone a name over it. I've made factual errors myself, and am always grateful when someone points out my error.

I have opinions. In fact most of what I post as original thread-starting posts is my opinion. I expect people to disagree with me, sometimes, but I don't expect to be attacked for my opinion. Nobody should. Discussion is a far better way to handle disagreements.

You're one of those who discusses things without broadcasting animosity while doing it. Thanks!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

83. The second approach to disagreement seems to have become more common here on DU over time.

I have been reading DU since 2008. Not sure when exactly I joined, but it was at least a few years before the hack made us all join anew. Also, I take frequent breaks. So my observations may not be accurate.

Still, it seems to me that DU used to have a greater percentage of thoughtful, well-reasoned, clearly written posts. I like a short snappy, incisive post as much as anyone, and I think this is just the way of written communication these days, for various reasons, but I do think the trend is not altogether a good one.

Another thing I think contributes to the problem is that it can be tough to feel part of the community. It often seems that one is more likely to inspire interaction with a comment someone disagrees with than the other way around. Maybe that's to be expected, but on the other discussion forums I've been involved with, it seemed different. Granted, they were much, much smaller groups.

[samplegirl]

54. I've been a member for 13 years

Never was a big poster because of all the scrutiny. But have read here for 13 years. We don't all share the same opinions and that is where people in our party get lost. If republicans say the sky is falling then by God the sky is falling and that's what holds their base. I don't think we should have to walk in lockstep but an opinion is just an opinion. It has drove so many people away. Sometimes it is a good thing not to post and just read and be able to view things from another's viewpoint. What democrats need is to consider all people on these boards have a right to their opinion and leave it at that. Starting a war never solved anything. Instead it's wasted time on jury. After years of reading I've learned to ignore the trolls and flame baiters and read posts of substance. I guess that's why I'm still here.

[get the red out]

59. +1

The goal seems to always be to get someone to explode then get them banned because they refuse to change their viewpoint when TOLD to do so by someone who can't stand disagreement. It has been tried with me, fortunately I remembered the "hide" feature and left someone screaming at me into the silent either.

[haveahart]

62. I read you! Amd i know you are right. The profile of those doing doing the 'alerting" and causing

many decent, articulate, smart people to be banned, suspended, or otherwise attacked is very telling. The problem is that people like you make the site bearable and informative. I believe some previously banned member have started another sitebut I don't the link or what it is called. I just heard a friend mention it in passing. She said the site was very selective and very open to diverse points of view. I am contacting her for follow-up.

[Hortensis]

76. No one that DU was created for would try to drive you off.

I can't believe you even feel a need to post this, but it is just more proof of infiltration by people of malicious intent. Does training at the troll farms actually include a "unit" on DU for people to be assigned here, I wonder?

In any case, if you left I would expect you to start up a new forum and I, and not doubt a great many others, would join you there. That's a very easy promise to make and would also be to keep. But no need, of course.

[MineralMan]

80. I'm sure that's true, and I'm not going anywhere.

DU is my political discussion home. There have been some rocky times for me here, but I'm a tough old bird and really have no problem dealing with such things. I think, over my time here, I've had about 8-10 posts hidden, and have learned from each one of those. I try to maintain my cool and politeness whatever happens, even when things get all wonky.

I don't alert on replies to any of my posts, but only on personal attacks against other DUers. When serving on juries, my votes to hide are also reserved almost exclusively for personal attacks, as well. A number of people have assumed that their hidden posts were because I alerted on some personal attack on myself. I never have. I prefer to respond to such things directly in the thread in which they occur, and in a calm, reasoned way.

I've served as a DU host several times, and on MIRT for a term or two. Many times, I've argued for people who have attacked me, since I believe that there's room for all sorts of things on DU. There are a couple of people who show up pretty much only on my threads, oddly enough. I find that amusing, really. A number of people who don't care for my posts would be surprised to learn how many times I've defended them and their right to post their opinions.

My screen name shows up frequently on DU-bashing web sites as a topic of conversation. I find that amusing, as well. Apparently they find me amusing, which is always interesting. I've been around online since the 1980s and on the Internet when I had to get on with a 2400 baud modem. I've always been active on political forums and many other forums on special interest topics. I have spare time, type over 100 words per minute, and enjoy putting thoughts into words, so I've racked up several books worth of writings on all sorts of topics.

I've had only a few screen names, with my current one being the one I almost always use on political sites. I've visited and posted on many of them, up until 2008, in November. At that time, I stopped writing on all political forums other than DU. I've been banned from exactly one discussion forum in all those years of writing, but am still getting blowback from my participation on that one, where I used the same screen name. I don't care. it doesn't matter to me.

I have an opinion on almost everything political. I'm not always right, of course, but I'm always ready to explain my opinion. Even my signature line contains a disclaimer about my posts being my opinion, and that only. I assume that everyone is stating their own opinion, to which they are entitled. If I disagree, I say so. If I agree, I say so. If I write something, it's because that's my opinion. I don't mind if everyone doesn't share it.

I would never start a discussion forum. It's too much work and too much heartbreak. I don't know how the DU admins manage to deal with it all, and would never undertake a thing like that. I appreciate this forum and contribute to it, both in posts and donations. I'll continue doing that as long as I'm interested in politics and able to pound on a keyboard.

[Va Lefty]

77. Very well stated!

[redstatebluegirl]

78. They almost ran me off early on. It can be brutal here.

[MineralMan]

81. For anyone who has strong opinions, only an ability to shrug off

attacks from people who don't share them lets you survive on a forum like DU. Most of the people who have tried to drive me off this site are no longer on this site. A few remain, but generally have ceased such activities. It doesn't matter, of course. I'm not going anywhere, nor am I going to stop sharing my opinion here.

I actually do know know a single person who posts on DU on any personal level at all. Mentioning this site, even in Democratic Party circles, generally gets a blank look. DU is important to DUers, but not really to anyone else, just like with most discussion sites. We're here, so we pay attention to DU. Nobody else does at all.

I'm not any sort of important person, nor is anyone I have encountered here, really. We're all just political junkies who can't resist talking about politics. Most news of any importance shows up here quickly, which makes DU a worthwhile news aggregation site. Discussions here are lively and always have a few knowledgeable people in them, which makes the site worthwhile as a place to learn about things I don't already know.

It also has conflicts, but so do all discussion forums, regardless of topic. It has detractors who post elsewhere about DU, as well. In that, it's just like most large discussion sites. None of that matters, really. It's a good place to hang out and talk politics. It's no more nor less than that. It's semi-anonymous, which is OK, too. I'm not particularly anonymous, although I've removed links in my signature line that lead to my meat-space identity.

DU's a good place in general, but can be a tough place to arrive at if you're even slightly sensitive to disagreement. It's not always a friendly place for casual participants. It's a rough and tumble discussion group, with some very rough edges, but there's enough knowledge, enough smart people who don't have an ax to grind and enough space within it to avoid those who do have such an ax.

I like DU. A lot. So, I'll be here for the duration.

[annabanana]

82. Oh my...Compuserve in the 80's

Talk about a blast from the past!

dos days

[MineralMan]

85. Yup. The Compuserve Politics Forum was a lot like

DU, actually. I was on GEnie, too, but not so much. I also ran a BBS system out of my house to support my little software company, and it was always busy. I had a small discussion forum on that, as well. Those old days were different, but the concept of an online discussion forum was the same. There was one person I know of on the CIS Politics forum who showed up on DU for awhile, with the same screen name he used there, and the same topic of circumcision he was always on about there.

At the time, as you said, it was MS-DOS and Compuserve was a totally text interface. No mouse, no nothing. Times have changed, but people haven't, it seems.

I still remember my old Compuserve User ID: 71571,222 I put my first website on Compuserve's MyWorld system back in 1991, I think. It was also the first service to offer internet access at about the same time. Sadly, it didn't survive, and I dropped it in 1995, although I was never able to take down my websites there when I switched to normal hosting. It was almost impossible.

[MineralMan]

88. By the way, the Compuserve Political Debate Forum

still exists and is active:

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Political_Debate/ws-politics?

[louis c]

84. I'm here as a Democrat (as in DEMOCRATIC Underground)

when this forum allows people in to disrupt what Democrats stand for or to troll and divide Democrats, I'll leave.

I've been here since 2004, and the reason I stay is that Skinner and co. throw out the disruptors.

Let them find another site.

[MineralMan]

86. They do find (or start) other sites, but often stick around

far too long, sometimes.

[louis c]

89. This is the only site I belong to or visit

It serves my needs

[StrictlyRockers]

87. Super into unity right now

Not into division or divisiveness at all.

[SCantiGOP]

107. It sounds to me

Like you need this place as much as I do.

[Demonaut]

111. you post too much

[MineralMan]

117. No. I post exactly as much as I choose to.

Thanks for your reply.

[Demonaut]

122. lol, it was a terrible joke

I've been here longer and post very little

[betsuni]

118. And I post too little. So what?

[Demonaut]

123. what

[redgreenandblue]

119. I've been here a while. It's really not that hard to follow the rules. nt

[MineralMan]

120. You're right. It's not that hard.

[Sugar Smack]

126. You're alright, Mineral Man.

I'm glad you're here. Great message.

[bcbink]

129. Not new just quiet

Thank you for being here through all the rough times. I have been politically educated on this site.
Obviously I do not post much. It is a little rough here for the shy ones.
thanks for not losing it
Bernadette

[MineralMan]

131. Thanks very much for posting a reply!