While we throw another Anchovy on the fire

[omega minimo]

and warm our hands over the Pizza, :toast: each other over the dearly departed,
let's listen to the Ghosts of DU Past, Present and Future:

DU Past: The beginning was inspired, the good old days never were,
it ebbs and flows, some people like to fight.

DU Present: The good old days never were, it ebbs and flows, some people like to fight
and we've got the fight of our lives on our hands: for our nation, our laws, our Party,
our Life/Liberty/Pursuit of Happiness and our Planet.

DU Future: The more we learn to quit infighting and practice common cause,
we may have a chance to win that fight.

[niyad]

1. the first two images don't show--only little boxes with "x" through them

[omega minimo]

2. sorry, thanks for the headsup

:hi:

[valerief]

3. As long as there are trolls, there will be fighting. nt

[omega minimo]

4. and as long as there is infighting

the trolls will have cover and last longer. Never understood why peers don't raise the bar on each other toward good behavior and flush out those who really are troublemakers. The infighting breeds slimy spots for them to hide in...

[MineralMan]

5. I guess I'm not fully understanding what you're saying.

The definition of common cause is really hard to pin down. I can make common cause with many DUers on many things. But, that breaks down sometimes, when single issues become the only issues. Philosophically, I'm a far left socialist. Realistically, I'm a pragmatist about some things.

Since your OP really doesn't define what common cause we should be making, in your opinion, it's really hard to understand what you're trying to say. I recognize your screen name, but couldn't actually say where your politics lie without spending half an hour looking at old threads.

Common cause is always a good thing for groups that want to wield political power, but there has to be some definition of what positions you think should be held in common.

Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific if I'm going to understand what you're saying here.

[omega minimo]

7. "The definition of common cause is really hard to pin down"

That's true. The guidelines -- including the Rules -- of this site provide some general idea, which is always in flux on the forums -- and rarely examined or invoked. So, yeah.

This OP is regarding behavior, which may be seen as part of that common cause, such as it is, resulting from the guidelines of this site.

"....we've got the fight of our lives on our hands: for our nation, our laws, our Party, our Life/Liberty/Pursuit of Happiness and our Planet. The more we learn to quit infighting and practice common cause, we may have a chance to win that fight."

Also, in the context of online behavior, the more that a critical mass of posters act as if there is an overarching common cause (even if we're not sure what all that is) and it is served by our good will toward each other under the DU umbrella, the serial abusers are easier to spot and eject.

It's a win win.

Sometimes, for Democrats and progressives in a diverse, pluralistic, (disembodied) society, mutual tolerance and basic manners are the embodiment of our common cause (as it was in the pre-Reagan decades), esp. as we will never march in lockstep like the far Right.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I guess it's still not clear to me.

There are many DUers who support President Obama in his decisions on Afghanistan. There are equally many who deride President Obama for the same decision. That presents rather a large obstacle in reaching common cause.

There are many DUers who believe that President Obama will get good policies enacted, given time to derail those Democrats who seem to be more like Republicans. There are equally many who believe that President Obama should never have been elected and is nothing but a disappointment. Common cause is going to be difficult to establish on this issue.

There are many DUers who believe that the Earth is overpopulated and that it would be better if the bulk of humans died off. There are, of course, far more who believe that the aforementioned DUers are nuttier than my mother's fruitcake. I can't find a lot of reason for common cause there.

We have the gun nuts and the gun haters. The vegetarians and the carnivores. The third party advocates and those who think that is the worst idea ever. No common cause.

The common cause I can identify with is the common cause of discussion of issues. I never expect anyone to agree with me on more than a few issues. I always expect that I will disagree with most people on some issues. I hope to be able to state my position here and discuss it, even argue about it vehemently.

When people post stupid things, I will say they are stupid things. When people speak of nothing but a single issue, I will point that out and try to turn the discussion to other, equally important issues.

You began this thread with some reference to pizza, which I assume referred to someone getting banned from DU. I have no idea who that might be. All I know is that someone clearly got banned. Who? What was the reason for that? I do not know, and this thread did not help me understand that.

You ask for common cause. I tell you that getting common cause without clear statments will never happen. Say what you think...what you believe...and those who agree will respond. Write obtusely and in terms only a few will understand, and you generate not common cause but confusion.

As I said, I recognize your screen name, but I can't remember who you are or what you believe. Am I expected to remember those things here? I realize that I have been here only just over a year. I never expect that anyone knows what I think, so I say it plainly. I try not to be obscure, unless I'm simply making a joke or writing something satirical.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your OP. I don't know for what you are asking. I don't know whether you are a "progressive," a "liberal," or a "centrist." You provide no clue...just obscure references to things that happened today. How am I to know your references?

If you want common cause, the cause must be identifiable. In this case, it simply is not.

[omega minimo]

11. It's not clear to you because you are so bent on making your point you are not considering mine

After missing the point, but not considering what was written for its own sake, not trying to understand, you are making your reactionary point that blocks my meaning from being "clear" to you. You are also making demands about how and what I should post to meet your expectations and ramifications.

You don't remember me. I remember you for similar previous encounters where you have been obtuse and aggressive -- or worse -- so if there ever was an opportunity for you to consider the point, I guess this was it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7174991&mesg_id=7176582

[leftstreet]

6. Another anti-vegetarian thread

Anchovies??!!

[omega minimo]

8. You've never tried

Fauxchovies? :spray:

[MineralMan]

10. Is that the stuff made of spoiled eggplant, seasoned with soy sauce?

It's not good. It's not good at all. I don't like it.