Isn't anyone else questioning why Sara's post was locked and

[wisteria]

moved into the regular forums?

[sandnsea]

1. Wow, I just noticed

My guess is that this one will be locked before too long too. And that while we used to not be able to talk about Dean or Clark, that Gore has recently been added to the list. :eyes:

Of all the absolute SHIT that gets posted at DU, a civil discussion about Al Gore - well oh hell no, we can't have that!!!

[wisteria]

2. I alerted just because I don't understand why it was moved out

to the general forum.I asked why when it may be taken as flame bait. Our posts are open and honest and really don't malign or discredit Gore. Why is it that we can't discuss Kerry's opposition, yet anybody wanting to can dump on Kerry. How come our discussions about Senator Clinton for example are just fine, yet when we honestly discuss, Dean or Gore or even Clark- although I don't recall any Clark discussions-somehow we are out of bounds.
I wonder what would happen to a real Kerry type attack on VP Gore started by one of us in the general forum?

[_dynamicdems]

4. I just alerted too. Something is wrong here. n/t

[sandnsea]

5. There was one

Clark thread and it got jumped on as quickly as any Dean thread does. Not that there's that many and not that they aren't about something that relates to the Democratic Party strategy anyway. I don't know that it does any good to alert on this kind of thing, it's never done any good in the past. But we'll see, because it is weird. I don't know why we can't talk amongst ourselves without every thread turning into a flame war.

And I keep finding it ironic that I never thought candidate forums were a good idea in the beginning, but now this is almost the only sane place in the entire blogosphere.

[_dynamicdems]

6. The thing is that you have to donate money to be able to post here in

the first place. If I post here or reply to a post that is here, I'm taking it on faith that this is where the post is going. If I had wanted to post in DU, I would have. It just seems kind of unfair that you have to donate money to post here but they can decide to move your post.

[sandnsea]

7. I understand

And I think it was bullshit to move the thread too. I'm just saying alerting probably won't do any good, that's all.

[_dynamicdems]

8. Probably not, but the response will determine whether or not I donate

any money here.

[_dynamicdems]

3. Yeah. That doesn't make sense.

I don't get it. Just because this is the Kerry group, that means we can't discuss other subjects?

That seems kind of rude to take a thread into GP when the person who posted didn't intend it for the general population of DU.

Makes me think twice about the other stickies I was going to purchase tomorrow.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

9. I just noticed my post was moved! Did I say something inappropriate

for the forum? I was comparing Gore and Kerry, true. Can't we do that? Anyone know? My title becomes silly in GD. Why would it be controversial there?

[sandnsea]

10. I don't know

I know we aren't supposed to have straight out bashing threads. I guess that's been extended to talking about any potential presidential candidate. Unless it's Lieberman, Biden or Hillary. Or maybe the threshold is the hero of the day. Who knows.

How can people possibly CARE. I can't for the life of me understand why anybody CARES what we talk about.

[saracat]

11. I sent an alert asking for an explanation.

I was comparing Gore and Kerry and expressing my opinion of some of the GD posts. I didn't intend that opinion be shared with GD. I didn't want to incite a flame war and if we can't discuss the virtues of Kerry versus another potential candidate in this group, where can we do it? I really am not comfortable with this and am very confused.

[karynnj]

12. I think the answer to why is the time of day

Re-reading it my posts are probably the worst - most people give Gore a lot of praise, which I really didn't.

What I find ridiculous is that it does become flamebait in DU. When I last saw it last night, there was an intelligent debate using real facts from their histories. I assume whoever moved it did so to cause trouble between us and the others. Maybe because most of us have been reluctant to come out and say exactly what we believe in the open forums, partially to avoid a fight.

The most interesting thing in the thread was the article on the 1988 Al Gore. I remembered that Gore's 1988 election bid had some real negatives attached to it but I couldn't remember why. That article clearly explains the beginning of the DLC and if it were not Gore, but Nunn or a now forgotten Democrat, it would likely get attention as proof the DLC was bad.

It may be that because we are using our group in a unique way that they don't know how to handle us. The thread may have been considered to be more Gore than Kerry. So, in that way it could have violated the rules. Though I would think the ridiculous personal attack on Tay Tay yesterday was far more obviously against the rules - especially because all she did was sarcastic ly (and in good humor) respond to a Gore fanatics comment that 1971 was 100 years ago. Maybe jealousy that Kerry really is a hero.

If anything, on one dimension, in DU Gore is the anti-Kerry. Kerry is criticized for everything he did or didn't do, while, at the moment, any criticism of Gore is considered off limits. Gore was never perfect, nor was Kerry. I just see far more to praise in Kerry's graceful, proud response to losing and his persistent fighting for what he has always believed in.

What's strange is that many on DU seem to be looking for some one who will fight, but can't see that Kerry never stopped fighting - he simply is not fighting exactly as they want or the (losing) battle they would choose. (The hardest to understand are those who say they know the election fraud was a losing battle, but it should have been fought anyway. They also don't see that Kerry may be the only real liberal in the field. (I think asking if it was right to support the Contras would be a good question - with possibly interesting answers - and it does say a huge amount about values.)

[ProSense]

13. It is one of those things

that makes no sense. It was a civil discussion among Kerry supporters. I can't understand why the thread would be locked in here, but it's beyond comprehensible that it would be moved to GD.

This doesn't even relate to the rehashing the primary rule, which is understandable to an extent, but it still shouldn't cut off civil discussion related to the person and events of the day.

DD makes a valid point about having to donate to participate in this discussion. Maybe there should be a rule against people trolling the candidate forums and filing complaints because they come across posts that are critical of someone. I don't do it and see no reason to do it.

[karynnj]

14. The good news is that it's on page 3

with just our comments - so the move shouldn't cause trouble.

[beachmom]

15. Sometimes I wish we had our own website like the Kerry Blog

The Clark thread was one that I started that had nothing to do with Clark, and then we were talking about technology, websites, etc. and Clark came up. Suddenly a Clarkie appeared and screamed at us with like 20 posts in 10 minutes. It was locked (appropriately so), but I felt pretty violated, because I thought we were "safe".

Maybe Kerry will start another blog site again, the way Edwards has one now. I have to admit that that would be great (although then would we be restricted from criticizing Kerry if we didn't like a decision he made?). I guess what I'm looking for is true freedom of speech but among friends, meaning you have to be civil to consider other people's feelings.

edited to say it better

[ProSense]

16. I hope not!

If the people running the site were true to Kerry's ideals, they wouldn't restrict criticism. If Kerry wasn't open to criticism, he wouldn't post at Kos or Huffington.

[karynnj]

17. There's also a major reason to not spin off yet

It's way too early and though it might be fun, we risk hearing only ourselves. Painful as criticism is, it's better to hear it, understand it and counter it if wrong. As someone said, it's not for the poster's benefit but for the lurker's benefit. Most of the negative posters are likely unreachable - if one is "Al Gore's girlfriend and says, in explaining her problem with Kerry, that Clinton, unlike Kerry, always gave clear straight answers, there is no answer to that.

There have also been more new people who seem to like Kerry. We have the audios/videos of Kerry's latest speeches - people there would be receptive to what they would see if they chose to see it.

[ProSense]

19. And that's still not true!

Clinton's answer on Monica Lewinsky got him in trouble! People blame their inability to comprehend on Kerry. If kids understood his "Dissent" speech, what's the problem?

[ginnyinWI]

20. it's also good that there is a strong "Kerry voice" at DU

We are the salt that helps keep this place sane, in my opinion. People who want to debate the issues and not participate in flame wars. At least I hope that's who we are!

[_dynamicdems]

21. Yes, we are nearing the 100K mark and we can't let them drive us off now.

New people just began working here and they might be Gore supporters. We need to wait and see what Skinner has to say on this.

In any case, I am witholding any further contributions until I have an answer. I'd been planning to put up two stickies today after going to the bank. Now, I'm giving to those environmental candidates Senator Kerry is promoting instead. I'm paid up for at least a year of this group so I'm sticking around.

Let's see if there is some recognition when we hit 100K posts.

[wisteria]

23. I wouldn't count on it, but I will stick around too. I am not that easy to

get rid of. I am paid up for a year also.

[beachmom]

22. You do have a point

The main reason I go to DU is this group. It is pretty convenient to go from here to GD or GD-P, so I suppose if we did migrate somewhere else, we would be less apt to post on DU, and the crazies would COMPLETELY run the place. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are NOT Kerry supporters who are also smart and civil. I certainly respect people who have legitimate concerns and criticisms, but it usually descends into this "Ohio he didn't count every vote" nonsense which outside of a select portion of the Left, would be met with looks of confusion and disbelief. Even Michael Moore said * won, which gives you an idea of how much of a movement would have backed Kerry up had he contested the election.

Yes, let's stay here, and see if we get recognition at 100K. I myself only contribute when I have to, because there are people on this site (which credit to the moderators deleted their posts) who have crossed the line countless times from legitimate debate to something more sinister.

[babylonsister]

24. I don't recall ever seeing a post moved from a group to

the GD forum. Hmmm. The current mods here are Wickerman, undergroundrailroad and mvd. Maybe someone can explain.
If anything, shouldn't it have been moved to the Gore forum?:shrug:

[ginnyinWI]

25. it doesn't make sense to me either

Our group's posts should stay here, because we intend them only for this audience--people we are familiar with and trust will understand where we are coming from. If we want to say something to DU in general, we go there to post. I know I post very differently there--because they don't know me.

This is a Kerry forum, but we should be able to cover other topics, too, as long as we don't break rules about outing trolls or what-have-you. DU is too large a group to "know" everyone. This group provides a reasonable number of people to know as online friends. And friends can talk about more than one topic.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

27. Locking

Questions about the moderation of Democratic Underground should go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html