Why not fight back by not taking the bait?

[omega minimo]

Some folks are "frustrated" about talking about the distraction du jour that was clogging this board over this (historic) weekend.

What's frustrating is a RELATIVELY trivial topic crowding out major news on the board. "Trolls" are the ones who plant the bait, not the ones that fall for it. (Relative to MAJOR events of the week and the day).

It's so obvious, isn't it? It happens every time. Like this week with HUGH news stories and events and after the Friday wrap up and during the national protest marches, the big hot topic is whether a candidate is a hypocrite or not because he's wealthy (just like all the other candidates and legislators are superwealthy and huge donors decide our elections-- that's what needs to be looked at, eh?).

All the good reasons to discuss that topic don't justify taking the bait, clogging the board and working the master baiters' weapons of mass distraction for them-- against ourselves.

That's "frustrating."

Let's see folks turn around and mock the next BS topic that is thrown out next time-- "we're not fallin for it this time!!" Let's see something like a focus on the MAJOR issues that they are trying to deflect attention from.

People know they do this. And still fall for it. Why not fight back by not taking the bait?

[sutz12]

1. Simple, really......Do not feed the trolls. nt

[treestar]

2. How do you recognize it?

There are some interesting questions to discuss - maybe it could be more generalized, like should liberal politicians live simply or not.

People take the bait because it is interesting.

It's tough to try to tell people they can't or shouldn't discuss something they find interesting. You just never win.

[omega minimo]

4. True. It's also interesting to ask "What are they trying to distract us from?"

:hi:

[treestar]

5. Yeah, that sure is true.

When one of these things hits, I always wonder what * or the PNAC are up to.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

9. One clue is the fact that certain issues only come up...

...when they can be used to slam a Dem. I haven't seen a lot of "developer responsibility" threads here, have you? It's a perfectly legitimate, and even vital, issue: developing land and real estate responsibly in a society facing a global climate crisis.

And developers these days have very little incentive to be responsible in what they do on a daily basis, in contrast to the Edwardses who, by all indications, are defenders of the environment. But where are all the "Edwards is a hypocrite" minions when it comes to actually doing something about irresponsible building, apart from whining? I wonder who really are the hypocrites here...

NGU.

[Guaranteed]

77. If it makes you think/challenges your worldview, it's a troll. nt

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. yeah.

We need to stay focused on stopping this war. Right now. In '07.

[omega minimo]

11. let's see a dissection of Repug hypocrisy on how they "Support Our Troops"

[CrazyOrangeCat]

14. guess we'll have to start using the "hide thread" function.

cuz some people just can't seem to understand the urgency of the situation.

;)

[pocoloco]

6. Nobody gives a shit about camels and needles anyway!

[meow mix]

7. news to op, candidates have announced. election is ON

better get used to it, and good job on calling entire groups of du people trolls.

[omega minimo]

10. don't repeat that lie. who's side are you on?

:evilfrown:

"and good job on calling entire groups of du people trolls."

News to poster, that is NOT what the OP said. Please read it.

[cgrindley]

8. How can you NOT be offended by Croesus's Palace?

I mean really. Look at it. It's a disgrace. I haven't got anything against someone having some money, but 28k square feet? Get real.

[omega minimo]

12. Are you offended by Big Money politics, stolen elections, missing Iraq millions and corporate rule?

:popcorn:

[cgrindley]

15. Yep and I don't have a finite supply of disgust for gross things

I can find Bush and his crowd of crooks offensive and still have room to get queasy over the ambulance chaser's mega-mansion.

[omega minimo]

16. nope, actually the "disgust" about a RELATIVELY trivial issue left little room for anything else

and definitely took the eye off the ball of "Bush and his crowd of crooks offensive"ness and offenses.


And you're welcome to support Dem candidates here, not call them "ambulance chasers."

[cgrindley]

19. I'm sorry I thought Edwards made his vast ungodly fortune

by negotiating personal injury and malpractice lawsuits? You're telling me he didn't? Because that's what an "ambulance chaser" is, by the way, just in case you didn't know.

[ClassWarrior]

20. He's a public protection attorney.

You'd rather that corporations could screw you whenever it's profitable to them?

By the way, can you put an actual number on "vast ungodly fortune?" Or are you just taking a cheap shot?

NGU.

[cgrindley]

21. Well, his own disclosure records say between 12-60 million

so I'd say that a "vast ungodly fortune" is approximately that much.

On the topic of "public protection attorneys", they shouldn't necessary and the criminal law should take care of any transgressions made against the public the big corporations (holding CEOs and other corporate officers physically liable for their deeds). By supporting the existence of these leeches, you're merely validating the current system (a symbiotic relationship between the huge corporations and their lawyers).

[ClassWarrior]

24. Yes, let's just stop defending ourselves...

...and let the huge corporations and their lawyers make us their bitches because we don't like the system.

:eyes:

How 'bout we CHANGE the system and don't let our guard down in the process?

NGU.

[cgrindley]

32. What are you talking about?

Since when is attacking tort lawyers a defence of big business? The kind of tort lawyers represented by Edwards *are* big business. They all suck exactly the same. They're all evil. They're two hands locked in an eternal handshake. Civil damages are unnecessary. We just need to strengthen criminal law and start to really lock up corporate criminals. Really start slamming these idiots--nationalization of their firms sounds pretty reasonable to me.

But it's illogical to suggest that an attack on the tort system and its blood sucking parasites is in any way a defence of corporate America.

[blondeatlast]

91. And without them, the poor in the US would have no legal protection whatsoever.

Enjoy your lovely little world--I'll take one John Edwards for 1000 corporate shills more interested in money for Halliburton than justice.

[omega minimo]

27. by calling him that you undermine yourself

[cgrindley]

36. But he's a personal injury lawyer...

What is going on with people? Am I in bizarro land? I feel like I'm the only villager savvy enough to be shouting "vampire" when Count Dracula walks by. Everyone else is defending the blood sucker by pointing out that he's gone from using flaming torches in his castle to low watt bulbs. For Christ's sake, he's a vampire. Carve some wooden stakes! Get the Garlic!

[ClassWarrior]

37. If it's Dracula vs. the Nazis...

...I'll take The Count.

NGU.

[cgrindley]

39. That's a fallacy of choice

You don't have to choose between Dracula and the Nazis... there's the nice young man who ran the Harvard Law Review and who actually did legal work for poor people, and there's that slightly brittle middle aged lady with bad hair whose husband was once the President of the United States of America. Either of those two would do just fine. No need to choose between Count Dooku and Lord Sidious.

[omega minimo]

41. you referred to the rightful Vice President of the United States as an "ambulance chaser"

the pretend VP is the actual "vampire"

[cgrindley]

42. The pretend VP is not a vampire

He's a Hitler-brained Cyborg.

[Clark2008]

53. Don't you know?

You can't say what the average person thinks about personal injury attorneys (that they're money-grubbing ambulence chasers - even if they DO do some good at slapping the wrists of big corporations) on this board if the candidate in question is cute!!

:sarcasm:

:hi: Welcome to DU.

[omega minimo]

63. can you say "what the average person thinks about personal injury attorneys" without the crude term?

the man deserves a bit of respect beyond "ambulance chaser" doncha think?

[Clark2008]

92. Nope - because that was the whole point.

That IS what people call personal injury attorneys. They know it. I have a dear friend who is one and he knows that what's he's called out in public-land. Hell, he even calls himself that from time to time.

[omega minimo]

96. Was he elected Vice-President in 2004?

;)

[kestrel91316]

44. "Ambulance chaser"??????? Try calling him that to the

face of the little girl who lost all her intestines in the pool drain.

You get to go on ignore. If there's anything I hate more than an American RW nut it's a foreign RW nut.

[cgrindley]

75. What does RW mean?

And yes, I would say that to his face. He ought to be ashamed of himself. And, by the way, your argumentum ad misericordiam is a first grade logical fallacy. Even a basic application of the Kantian imperative should tell you that a $25 million dollar personal injury settlement is not in the best interests of a just society.

Look at his house. He bought it on purpose. He meant to do that.

[kestrel91316]

83. Right Wing

The company that knew they had a problem with their dangerous pool drains and DID NOTHING and that girl has to live the rest of her life WITHOUT HER INTESTINES AND COLON.......................$25 million is a slap on the wrist.

[cgrindley]

86. You don't think that 25 million dollars is excessive?

Do you actually know why your argument is irrational?

[Nye Bevan]

13. I agree that we should not take the bait, but

it would be better if the candidates did not provide any bait for people to take.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Now how is that even possible?

Are you suggesting that candidates live like monastic disciples just to be worthy of consideration?

If Edwards was, let's say, against the war publically but was making money off of it insecret, you would have a point. But having a big house? Come on! That's not providing bait!

There are NO candidates that will fit the specs that everyone wants for them to be. Not gonna happen.

[porphyrian]

17. I'm disturbed by the number of people who've recently been creating the "troll" subclass to blame...

...for all things distasteful on DU. We need to segregate, is that it? Are our beliefs and virtues really threatened by an invading force of dastardly rabble-rousers, or are we simply creating a group of second class lessers instead of elevating ourselves? Then what have we become?

Your advice for dealing with those who irritate you is pretty good, though. Ignoring "trolls," especially by using the ignore feature, will make them eventually go away. If not, you can report them for stalking you.

[omega minimo]

25. No. that doesn't help at all. Someone dropped this turd in the punchbowl though.

This OP suggests to ignore the bullshit TOPICS floated outside DU (this started with Drudge?) intended to be picked up to distract. If there are trolls here, they are gonna stir it up.

That's to say ignore the BS TOPICS-- that's NOT to say "accuse people."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Do You Not See The Problem In The Logic Of Condemning The Topic But Constantly Posting About It?

In the last 3 days, almost every single one of your posts and now you are up to 5 threads I think, have been on this damn topic. Each time you keep putting some premise forth of how horrible it is that this topic keeps getting discussed while other issues aren't. Yet you have spent almost NO time in the past few days discussing ANY of those topics you preach of. In fact, you've committed yourself these past few days to ONLY talking about the Edwards crap, even if under the guise of complaining about talking about it.

Do you not see where the logical problem would be there? Why do you keep posting almost identical threads calling people trolls for distracting with the issue, while yourself being guilty of the same? Why do you keep calling for discussion of more important topics while you even have put no effort forth to discuss those other topics? Did DU really need another "Those talking about the Edward's house are trolls" thread?

Way I see it, if you actually cared about the important topics being discussed instead of these garbage clog up GD ones, then you'd actually, ya know, be talking about them. Instead, you just keep preachin and postin threads on "How DARE we not be talking about the important issues" while continuing to fail for the past 3 days to converse about those issues yourself.

Sorry, but I find huge flaws in that logic and premise. Maybe if you helped let the topic die you could get what you seek. Jesus.

[omega minimo]

29. Do You Not See The Problem In The Logic Of Obsessing About Omega Minimo?

:evilfrown:


And stop repeating this LIE:

"calling people trolls for distracting with the issue"


this crap is what the block was for

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Don't Deflect. How Bout An Answer To The Questions. Why Not Kick One Of Your Other 4 Threads Sayin

the same thing? Can you answer the questions put forth in the previous post?

This isn't about 'you' Omega, it's about a premise of repeatedly demanding important topics be discussed while refusing to discuss them yourself, all while contributing to the lack of their discussion by repeatedly issuing additional threads on the garbage topic. Do you not see why that would be considered completely illogical and destructive to your own supposed mission?

I got a tip for ya: There are a TON of important topics being discussed. If you are so interested in them it would make far more sense for you to post in them, wouldn't it? If you truly cared about those topics being discussed instead of this one, then how come you haven't had ANY posts in the last full 3 DAYS discussing anything else but this? How come if you hate this topic so much it has remained all you can focus on? How come even in the absence of posters replying to your threads on the subject, you continue to post more of them? How is all of this possibly going to help you meet your stated goal of having the important topics discussed instead? How do you feel you have the right to demand this of DU'ers, when you yourself have refused to partake in any other discussion in the past 3 days? Why haven't you? I can show you 30 topics right now more important than this one that you could be discussing.

So don't make this about me not liking you. It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with that. What it has to do with, and ALL it has to do with, is seeing a DU'er repeatedly scold other DU'ers for discussing a topic that the DU'er keeps obsessing about themselves. I think my points are quite clear and quite valid. Maybe it would help your stated cause if you thought about my questions and realized that you are hurting your own cause by only talking about the topic you don't want discussed, and avoiding altogether the topics that you do.

Post any attack you want in response, as until these questions above are answered there is no reason to discuss this any further.

[omega minimo]

34. I am not going to correct your twisted troublemaking

which is what the Block was intended for

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. There's Nothing To Correct. Only Valid, Straightfoward And Factual Questions To Answer.

You can try deflecting away from them all you want via personal attack that doesn't address context, but that doesn't clarify the issue in any way to other DU'ers. In fact, I'm sure all of them will have no trouble whatsoever seeing the same contradiction in logic that I pointed out. If you're satisfied with continuing to preach one thing but totally engage in the other, than have at it. But don't mind me or others if we call out the logical anomalies while you do so.

And if I asked you too many questions; my apologies. I'll narrow it down to one. Just ONE:

If you are so concerned about other topics being discussed, how come this is the ONLY topic you've discussed at all in the past 3 days?

There. I'll narrow it down to just that one. Have at it.

[omega minimo]

40. All you're concerned with is making trouble and misrepresenting

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. You Contine To Deflect From The Issue. Speaks Volumes As To The Accuracy Of It.

Mind telling DU exactly HOW I've misrepresented anything Omega? You love to throw out those personal attacks yet so rarely can justify them. Mind if I ask that you do?

What have I misrepresented? What part of my questions are not valid? HAVE you discussed any other topic other than this in the last 3 days? Am I lying about that (posts of nothing more than a dot as a kick don't count as discussion)? Are there not dozens if not hundreds of other active topics on DU right now that would be considered by you to be more important that you could be posting in? Am I misleading in stating that you have yet to take part in discussion in ANY of them? Am I misrepresenting anything by calling out the fact that you are chastising DU'ers and calling them trolls for talking about this garbage topic while you have been committed to only engaging in discussion on the exact same topic? Just what am I misrepresenting Omega? Can you answer even THAT question?

You keep wanting to deflect attention away from these valid questions that might show the contradiction of your threads' premises. You keep wanting to spin the argument away from fact and make it attack instead, by issuing personal attacks of your own. But this isn't personal. It is a perfectly legitimate response to a contradictory OP premise that has been issued repeatedly by you in the past several days. If it's one thing I can't stand on here sometimes, is false preaching by those who take part in that which they preach against. There is no honor nor integrity in doing such, and such premises should ALWAYS be challenged and called out.

So put your money where your mouth is. You say I misrepresented. Prove it. Show how. Tell me what's been misrepresented. Way I see it, I've been nothing short of spot on.

Let's see if just for once you will back up your attack with some substance. :hi:

[omega minimo]

47. You are the one referring to the topic not named in OP, which was about the next Distraction du Jour

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. LMFAO! Now THAT's Funny! Got A Good Analogy For Ya:

Saying that your OP leading line of "Some folks are "frustrated" about talking about the distraction du jour that was clogging this board over this (historic) weekend." is not 'technically' mentioning the Edwards topic, is as ridiculous a premise as those spinners who tried to claim that "hey, we didn't say Plame, we said "Joe Wilson's WIFE!!!!!" wasn't mentioning Plame.

This discussion is done. It has now degenerated into absurdity. My points are already standing firm so I need not cement their legitimacy further.

Bye! :hi:

[omega minimo]

52. you're the only one that read them

:puke:

[Crunchy Frog]

87. I read them too, and I completely agree.

:hi:

[sniffa]

45. you nasty, negative person

:cry:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. LMFAO! You Just Cracked Me Up LOL

:rofl:

Seriously. The crying smilie totally put me over the top and made me chuckle aloud. Too funny!

[TorchTheWitch]

30. WOOOOT!!!

:applause:

[TZ]

43. makes sense

I am not a fan of the particular topic but you put forth a pretty rational argument. I do ignore threads myself when I get tired of the issue and think its gotten absurd (which I think is the case here) but I just wanted to say that you make excellent points and have convinced me its no longer worth my time. Thanks

[omega minimo]

60. he convinced you to miss the point. that's his specialty.

:thumbsdown:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Yes Omega, It's All One Big Conspiracy! LOL Orrrrr, Maybe, My Point Makes Sense, And Yours Doesn't.

Justtttttt maybe.

[omega minimo]

65. your misinterpretations are irrelevant

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=70207&mesg_id=74315

[omega minimo]

66. anyone still unclear on what the Admins meant by "constantly harasses"?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. How Is This Harassing? Maybe If You Addressed Context Rather Than Engaging In Personal Attack, It

wouldn't have to go like this.

I'm not harassing you. I'm calling out what I considered to be a complete contradictory logic of your OP. Do you think you are above community scrutiny Omega? Do you think you should be shielded or immune from replies that disagree with you or challenge you? Give me a break.

No one's harassing you Omega. It is merely challenging your premise and seeing if you can defend it. So far, not only haven't you, but you've done a disservice by only countering with personal attack.

Either you can defend your own damn argument, or you can't. If you can't, then it probably isn't worth responding.

[omega minimo]

70. "How Is This Harassing?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. All Talk, No Substance. What Amazes Me, Is That You Actually Think Others Agree With YOU.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Lesson learned though. I should've never allowed your substanceless non-contextual baiting attacks to suck me in once again to some useless round and round subthread in which my original point remains unrefuted.

Next time, I'm gonna make sure I stick to my conviction of not allowing your provocation to suck me in, and will only post my point and move on, unless you actually learn how to refute context instead of engaging only in personal smear.

[omega minimo]

72. I think others have the option to not be baited by bullshit artists and Right Wing mindfuckers

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. Like I Said, I'm Going To Join The Others And Not Allow Myself To Be Baited By Them Anymore Either.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

74. I Know You Are But What Are You?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. What Misinterpretations Omega?

You keep saying it, and I keep giving you opportunities to provide substance or legitimacy to it, yet you keep refusing to do anything else other than repeat it as if just the act of doing so makes it real.

Like I said the other night when I called you out on your completely false attack that you were caught red handed with: There is no honor or integrity in making up attacks of which you have no justification or ability to defend. In fact, it's a pretty shitty thing to do.

[omega minimo]

69. No one is required to answer your pompous, demanding tirades. We can refuse to take the bait.

:evilfrown:

Until repetitive behavior like yours reinstates the Block function.

[Guaranteed]

78. Totally reasonable. Well done. nt

[omega minimo]

97. "Sorry, but I find huge flaws in that logic and premise."

"Why do you keep posting almost identical threads calling people trolls for distracting with the issue"

"Did DU really need another "Those talking about the Edward's house are trolls" thread?"

Those blatant, inflammatory lies discredit everything the poster says and destroy the credibility of anyone who would TRY to misrepresent intentionally (twice in 2 sentences one after the other) for the purpose of confusing people and making trouble.

Intentionally misrepresenting what the OP said to MISTRANSLATE so that you will praise the steaming heap of bullshit and smile as you swallow it and ask for another helping.


That is not at all what I said and it is the opposite of what this OP was about.

Intentionally.

:evilfrown:



For anyone else who missed the concept and bought the mindfucked version:

You know about the talking points, the Luntz word games, the Turdblossom droppings in the news cycle, the "framing" of issues, the presence of trolls, the Orwellian terms in use every day.............

It's really not too much of a stretch to ask the question, why not fight back by not taking the bait?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. How Many Times Are You Going To Post The Same Thing Under A Different Header? Do You Honestly Think

this is helping somehow?

[omega minimo]

26. Take your twisted negativity elsewhere

[Greyhound]

55. The arrogance and illusion of superiority that often resides in youth.

Given time, most learn the hard way that they are not really "in the club".

[omega minimo]

59. There is enough confusion around this-- no need for those misinterpretations and constant harassment

which only serve the purposes of those who want Democrats confused, off topic and fighting each other.


:hi:

[Adelante]

76. Oh, please, you got your ass kicked well and truly

You deserved it.

[omega minimo]

79. If you need mindcrime to misinterpret DU for you, that's too bad.

At least think for yourself and you might get the point.

[Adelante]

81. Feh

You're like a little mosquito.

[omega minimo]

89. He knows that I don't answer his histrionic posturings so he's just showing off for you

If you want to call that an "ass-kicking," fine. It's more like him on his back, kicking up in the air in a temper tantrum.

I tried to read a couple but they look like this:

""Here Is My Reinterpretation Of What You Are Saying And You Said That Other Time And I Know Because I Am Obsessing On All Your Posts And You Had Better Submit To My Demands!!!!!111 And Refute What I Am Misrepresenting About Your Intentions And Ideas And Previous Posts In Other Threads Where I Also Harassed You Which I'm Not Supposed To Drag In Here But I Do Anyway And If You Don't Tell Me What I Want To Here RIGHT NOW!!!!111 I Can Only Presume Along With The Brazillions Of People All Over The Planet That I Am Standing Up For And They All Agree With Me If You Do Not Read All My Ravings And Refute Every One Then You Have Admitted That I Am Right And You Agree With Every Lunatic Accusation OR ELSE!!!!!!11""


No, thank you.
Homey don't play dat :evilfrown:



I will tell you this. As he proudly noted that he had checked my posts :crazy::scared: and accuses me of not actually posting in threads on any other subjects........ I tried an experiment in kicking up and Rec'ing other important posts at the height of the housemania....... all but one dropped back quickly...........



So how bout you WesDem, are you here to "kick ass" or are you here to get something done?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. Oy Vey:

"He knows that I don't answer his histrionic posturings so he's just showing off for you"

You don't because you can't. The questions are legitimate. The only answers are "you're right, I am preaching one thing and doing the other", but I doubt you're prepared to admit that.

"If you want to call that an "ass-kicking," fine."

And then some.

"It's more like him on his back, kicking up in the air in a temper tantrum."

Tell me, do you actually convince yourself that this is true? How sad. :rofl:

"I tried to read a couple but they look like this:

""Here Is My Reinterpretation Of What You Are Saying"

Pretty direct interpretation. You posted 5 threads dedicated to talking about the topic you call others trolls for discussing. You posted ZERO threads on any other topic. You discussed ZERO other topics in the past 3 days.

"And You Said That Other Time And I Know Because I Am Obsessing On All Your Posts And You Had Better Submit To My Demands!!!!!111"

Don't flatter yourself honey. No one is obsessed with you. No one. Ever. Also, No one is demanding you submit to any demands. We're merely asking that if you are going to repeatedly scold DU'ers for doing something, that you like, ya know, not do it yourself, repeatedly LOL

"And Refute What I Am Misrepresenting About Your Intentions And Ideas And Previous Posts"

There ya go with the unverifiable unjustifiable completely illegitimate weak attack again. Show a misrepresentation, Omega. Show one. You won't. You can't. Good luck.

"In Other Threads Where I Also Harassed You Which I'm Not Supposed To Drag In Here But I Do Anyway"

No one harasses you omega. They simply challenge your false premise. Unfortunately, your fragile ego can't handle being disagreed with or challenged so instead of refuting anything or engaging in debate, all you know how to do is call people trolls, disruptors, abusers, harassers, blah blah blah blah blah. No one buys it Omega, you're only fooling yourself.

"And If You Don't Tell Me What I Want To Here RIGHT NOW!!!!111 I Can Only Presume Along With The Brazillions Of People All Over The Planet That I Am Standing Up For And They All Agree With Me If You Do Not Read All My Ravings And Refute Every One Then You Have Admitted That I Am Right And You Agree With Every Lunatic Accusation OR ELSE!!!!!!11""

Let me translate that back into reality: "You issue false attack and false premise and can't ever back it up with substance: Ever."

"No, thank you.
Homey don't play dat"

Who says that anymore? Jesus.


"I will tell you this. As he proudly noted that he had checked my posts :crazy: :scared: and accuses me of not actually posting in threads on any other subjects........ "

Of course I did. I like to make sure when I say something, it's like, ya know, factual and stuff. I know that is a foreign concept to you, but too bad. I had a hunch, cause I know you. I had a hunch, cause all I've seen from my browsing DU is your talking about the very subject you condemn. So I verified. And VOILA! Yup.

"I tried an experiment in kicking up and Rec'ing other important posts at the height of the housemania....... all but one dropped back quickly..........."

Nice experiment. But ya know what? A little dot isn't exactly going to spur conversation. If you were serious about talking about other things, you woulda like, ya know, talked about them LOL. Hey, maybeeeeee even one of your 5 threads could've been dedicated to them! Oops, silly me, that would make too much sense.

"So how bout you WesDem, are you here to "kick ass" or are you here to get something done?"

Who says we can't get things done by kickin some ass?

Whatever.

(and sheesh, can't you let it go? Do you have to keep replying about ME? Talk about obsession LOL)

Bye now! :hi:

[omega minimo]

94. .

Thank you for proudly detailing all your Rulebreaking and exemplifying the need for the Block function.

You know I don't answer the demands of your histrionic posturings and yet you constantly harass me.

If you were actually interested, just once, ever, in discussing what you are pretending to care about-- rather than just bother people all over the place-- you might get some replies other than your little homies.

Think about it.

[Parche]

23. TROLL

I found this one lurking DU, caught it and de-trolled it...........

Or maybe this was really Karen Hughes???

[Hidden Stillness]

33. I'm Sorry, omega, but I Cannot Agree--at All

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21.)
"No (one) can serve two masters:"..."Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)
"But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." (Luke 6:24.)

"To suppose, as we all suppose, that we could be rich and not behave as the rich behave, is like supposing that we could drink all day and stay sober." (Logan Pearsall Smith, "Afterthoughts.")

I am flabbergasted that people are not deeply offended at this palace-building, and are not troubled at what it means. Some phony "televangelist" gets exposed as hoarding all the money contributed by the gullible audience, and DU erupts with attack at the hypocrisy of it all--correctly. Then someone who has done little other than posture, builds a monument to riches, and everybody "drinks the Kool Aid"--oh that's all right; that's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT kind of greed. I have basically avoided these threads, but managed to read a few highly offensive "comparisons" between the Roosevelts and Kennedys on the one hand, and all they have done despite being born into riches, and Edwards on the other. It doesn't make me laugh; it makes me vomit.

What one person considers a distraction might be the central point to somebody else, and after all, if "we" had listened to the "superior, know-it-all" computer jockeys some months ago, and ignored the "trivial" Mark Foley story, because the clueless computer types completely misread it as a "sex" story, when parents from one end of the country to the other were outraged that a group of rich Republican males would cover up crimes committed by one of theirs rather than protect harrassed and threatened kids, then we might have lost the recent election, with no rising tide of outrage at the #1 issue of voters, "Republican corruption."

Other than surgically remove a lip wart, what has Edwards ever done for the poor?

Have you ever read the story of the poor and abused Lazarus, starved and ignored to death by the rich male behind the gate, and what happened to both of them after death, their fortunes completely flipped? (Luke 16:19-31.)
"But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." (Matthew 19:30.)

I hate Republicans because they are rich, they are the Party of bankers and deregulating corporate employers, they try to undo every bit of progress the middle class and poor have made, they steal tax money for their own personal use, they block anything that might make the lives of the middle class and poor easier, etc., etc., etc.,...and therefore...

[omega minimo]

35. I defer to you HS, esp. as the mindfuckers are relentless

[Greyhound]

49. "I hate Republicans because they are rich". If that is why you hate them,

then how do you justify being a Democrat?

In case it has escaped your notice we have lots and lots of rich people over on our side too. In fact, I can't think of a single poor democrat that has their voice heard. They're all rich bastards and they are the ruling class, dictating how we will live our lives in their service.

Tim and Susan live in luxury in their multiple houses, George Soros is a billionaire as are Geffen, Katzenburg, Lucas, Winfrey, etc. It ain't about repuke & Dem, black, brown, or white, man & woman, it's about green.

[Hidden Stillness]

51. Agree; Badly Put

Yes; that was badly put. I was trying to wrap up the post quickly at the end, and just used an overly generalized, unexplained phrase that was actually not good at all.

[Greyhound]

54. And I don't disagree, in our zero sum capitalist system, each "rich" person

requires 100's, if not 1000's, of deprived people to support their wealth. It just struck me as an unusual statement and I felt compelled to respond.

[omega minimo]

62. and that's one of the directions a discussion about Democratic personal palaces could go....

:bounce:

[hfojvt]

56. what has Edwards ever done for the poor?

First, he seems to have been the only major candidate to make poverty an issue in 2004. He gave speeches drawing attention to the issues of poverty. Who else has been doing it, and who else will do it? Even if it is only posturing, I appreciate the words, because nobody else was doing it that I ever heard.

Second, Edwards did not build it. It was a barn that he refurbished. I am not sure how much of it he had built and how much remodeled.

Third, as palaces go, his is hardly the most elaborate, even of the Democratic candidates.

Fourth, comparing him to a televangelist is disengenuous because he has not been raising money for the purpose of expanding the kingdom of god and then putting that money into his own palatial estate.

Fifth, he has worked as a lawyer defending victims of corporate negligence. He's like Matt Damon in the movie "Rainmaker".

Sixth, a portion of his wealth is in a charitable foundation in memory of his son. http://www.wade.org/wef.htm

[omega minimo]

88. You're right

You're right. Including about saying "I hate Republicans" and greyhound1966 is correct in clarifying. Thing is, since Reagan, Republicans have been the "Greed is Good" party and made it hip and trendy and EVERYWHERE. 26 years of Reaganism and Clinton's term of Republican Lite with the encroachment of corporate power into every aspect of life-- yeah, we got a whole lot of people trying to survive while the rich (including Dems) get richer and the poor get dead. And the middle class disappears.

greyhound1966
49. "....It ain't about repuke & Dem, black, brown, or white, man & woman, it's about green."

People are afraid and distractions are welcome. Bushco. wants to start WWIII:nuke: So yeah, let's call the one candidate who presented himself as a populist -- which is what we need to fight corporate rule -- and announced his candidacy in New Orleans -- where the American public witnessed televised genocide and yawned and changed the channel, never realizing that those desparate faces could just as easily be their own faces under this administration -- he presented himself as a populist and committed the crime of building an exorbitant home and expects us to swallow the "energy efficiency" bit cuz they changed the light bulbs.

Fine. I get it. I really do. The thing is, I don't see the point of piling on to just that one person/family/candidate. Even if people want to ignore all the major events of last week (!!!) wouldn't it make sense to point out that Edwards is not alone in being superwealthy, that most of those on the Hill are, that it costs a brazillion $$$ to run for president or any other office these days? That lobbyists and superrich and corporations run the country and write policy and own/operate the voting machines and most megamedia under the Bush adminstration? That most states suffer from the same disease of business running government, legislators giving themselves huge raises justified by "what they could earn in the private sector" as if the public OWES them that compensation OR ELSE no one "qualified" will bother running for office?

Excuse me while I :puke: That's where we live now. Just jumping on and pounding Edwards is so short-sighted. (Oh wait, the campaign has begun and we're supposed to "deal with it.....") and too easy.

You're right it may be the "central point" and even more relevant in ways we can't know now.............. is it too much to ask that we have some general awareness of the REALITY of the overall picture while we attack a Democratic candidate for being a "hypocrite"? Or that the broader and related subjects are included.........................

Yes. It is.

The situation we are in is so volatile, so deadly, so urgent, that the campaign is another distraction. Democrats in Congress need to be focused and cooperating in addressing the atrocities of this administration. Maybe they need a distraction too. :hide:

As you point out, we don't know how things will turn out. Perhaps a sane voice will emerge as Dem candidates step out on their own. We can only hope.

:hug:

[Batgirl]

57. "don't take the bait" is always worthy advice

and a timely reminder in light of recent past events.

[LanternWaste]

58. I like DU for many reasons.

For my part, if I believe it's a new talking point forwarded to our resident trolls by the 'Publicans, I'll sometimes respond by asking a direct question relevant to the original comment. If I never receive a direct answer (which hasn't happened yet in this weekends distraction), I'll file that in my head for the next time a peer at work or in my family asks the same talking point.

I like DU for many reasons. One of them is that I get to test various anti-bait strategies here prior to using them in the real world.

[omega minimo]

61. "Anti-bait"

:thumbsup:

[Rex]

80. Well, it is silly when we talk about one house and others have oh

I dunno...10 houses, 15 houses, houses all over the planet. Their own private army of 'helpers'. Their own private army.

[Adelante]

82. People, go watch this video

Something real to worry about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ybvWplJh4

[Deja Q]

84. Because any fisherman hungry enough will keep the bait out there and refresh it when needed.

[applegrove]

85. We need to take all aspersions with a grain of salt. Just stop and think and

wait for the story to be confirmed. Or, as in the case of a house, think about who else lives in a big one. They all pretty much do.

[XemaSab]

90. That is so out of line...

Calling people who are environmentalists "trolls?"

If you look at the people who started the threads questioning Edwards' judgement, most of them have thousands and thousands of posts.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them a troll.

[omega minimo]

95. yo

omega minimo (1000+ posts)  Mon Jan-29-07 07:52 AM
Original message
Why not fight back by not taking the bait?

" "Trolls" are the ones who plant the bait, not the ones that fall for it.

"All the good reasons to discuss that topic don't justify taking the bait, clogging the board and working the master baiters' weapons of mass distraction for them-- against ourselves."




You know what I meant, don't you?

[frogcycle]

98. AND DON'T START MORE THREADS SAYING THE SAME THING!

off to "hide thread with ye!

[omega minimo]

99. "working the master baiters' weapons of mass distraction for them-- against ourselves"

"All the good reasons to discuss that topic don't justify taking the bait, clogging the board and working the master baiters' weapons of mass distraction for them-- against ourselves."

"People know they do this. And still fall for it. Why not fight back by not taking the bait?"



Don't miss the point.