You Are Entering a Republican Zone

By Robert A. Hahn Posted in Comments (137) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Advice for visitors from the other side of The Big Ditch

Who should read this?

You should, if you're a Democrat and are coming over to find out what those Republicans are up to.

Why should I read this?

Because, based on experience, you are highly likely to get troll-rated and banned in short order if you don't.

What, are Democrats automatically considered trolls here?

Not necessarily, but it happens often enough that we thought a guide on how not to have it happen might be useful. Read on.

Like any collection of human beings, RedState exhibits emergent behavior. This is a set of behavioral norms that people here follow in dealing with one another.

If you are coming here from Daily Kos, the first one you'll need to know about is no profanity. Using profanity is the fastest way to be shown the door. There is no Official List of dirty words you can't use, so don't use any until you've been around a while and see what gets by and what doesn't. Be aware that the Life Is Not Fair principle applies to all judgments concerning what is profane.

Until you've been around here a while and have established some creds as a serious participant, don't get snarky. Snarky Democrats have a short half-life in these parts, especially if they are new to the community. See the Life Is Not Fair principle for details. In particular, this means you might get snarked, and want real badly to snark back. Don't do it until people understand that you're basically an OK person. This will take weeks.

Do not assume you can win an argument with Known Facts. Many things that Kossacks consider to be Known Facts are considered to be Known Lies on this side of The Big Ditch. Reciting Known Facts is another quick way to meet the bouncer. Ordinary facts are welcome, but Known Facts are considered to be evidence of hostile intent. "Bush lied" is an example of a Known Fact.

Certain trusted users have the ability to rate posts. A "1" means they think you're a troll, a "5" means your brilliance shines like the Sun. These ratings do not affect anything, but you can use them as a guide to whether you are using too many Known Facts or are serving up snark before your time. Do not gripe about your ratings. See the Life Is Not Fair principle for details.

Leave your assumptions at the door. You do not know any of these people, you do not know their backgrounds, and you do not know what they may have done in their lives. Whatever picture you have in your mind of what a "Republican" is, it's wrong, so until they all don't look alike, refrain from assuming anything about what positions your fellow bloggers might hold.

Avoid using the diary feature until you have established some creds with the residents. A diary that is full of what we would consider to be "liberal tripe" will not impress anyone. You can't tell us any Democratic Party talking points that we haven't already heard a hundred times, so please do not think you need to inform us concerning what they are.

If you haul out a wonderful new Democratic Party talking point with which to slay us, and it gets "troll" rated, it probably means we've already heard that one, beaten it to death, and don't want to talk about it anymore. We are only going to entertain "But Reagan tried to make ketchup a vegetable" so many times. If you are the Nth-plus-one person to use it, we are just not going to deal with it. Instead you'll be labeled a troll.

[UPDATED 7/27/05] Do not go around poking people with pointy sticks. A pointy stick is any comment that has no purpose other than to annoy or enrage. If your first post here is, or contains, a sharp pointy stick, your first post will probably be your last.

Ultimately, whether you stay — or are shown the door — depends on whether you are perceived to be making a positive contribution to the site. Staying within the rules will not help you if you are basically here to annoy people or count coup. Conversely, if you make positive contributions by discussing things fairly and can back up your claims with cites, you will earn more leeway to make mistakes.

If you are unclear as to what any of this means, watch for a while before you post. At any given time, there will Democrats who are accepted members of the community, Democrats who are on the way to The Pile and either don't know it or don't care, and Democrats who just walked in without reading any of this. You can tell from the ratings which is which. Emulate the ones whose notes are being up-rated, and you will be on your way to a happy experience here.

« Today is worthy of celebrationComments (7) | Hagel Should Move OnComments (30) »
You Are Entering a Republican Zone 137 Comments (0 topical, 137 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Remember, too, good visitor, that if you espouse the same opinions as Barry Goldwater regarding the influence of the religious Right, you're going to be regarded as persona non grata around here.  Also, there is no such thing as a debate about the right to privacy, let alone abortion.  Republicans of a Libertarian bent should save their bandwidth and mosey off somewhere else.

Because here at Redstate, the State has every right to poke its nose into your personal affairs, especially if those involve sex, reproduction, or death.  Pro-choice Republicans would be well-advised to keep their mouths shut.  Republicans whose relatives have witnessed their DNR orders should be aware that the Congress might find it expedient to conduct a public relations event outside their hospice whenever the political need arises.

Fiscal conservatives seem also to be rather thin on the ground here.  Do you wish the (GOP controlled) Congress would raise taxes to pay for the occupation of Iraq?  Best take that line of argument elsewhere.  War means tax cuts, not communal sacrifice.  Nation building was bad in 1999, but it's the bees knees now, so shut up and get behind the mission.  Whatever that might be.

So to sum up, from months of lurking, here is one Republican's view of Redstate:  if you're a big-government, low-wage, no-privacy, anti-states' rights zealot, and an anti-abortion activist, you're fine.  Dobson has replaced Goldwater around here.  

That's what they mean when they use such terms of art as "big ditch."    

hang around these parts too often.

" if you're a big-government, low-wage, no-privacy, anti-states' rights zealot, and an anti-abortion activist, you're fine."

Either that or just not very skilled in reading comprehension.

BTW-I've been here a while, so I can be snarky.

You on the other hand, can not.    

Was this a plant to show us guests what not to do?

But it is a fine example.

Although on the merits I would give it a 1, especially considering that it's the first post by this alleged "lurker" for five months.  It's remarkable that you've lurked here for five months and yet in that entire time have kept silent on all these matters, your stomach  churning all the time, the pressure building, until finally now, tonight, the mantle melts and this eruption blasts out?  I find it hard to believe that someone would lurk around these parts for five months as a Republican and have nothing to say in any of the discussions relating to any of the subjects you mention.  

But I want to make a comment about this post and the angst that it seems to convey, because I'll give it the slimmest of slim benefits of the doubt based on my own recent outburst yesterday, because I could zero-rate you, but for tonight my gun is safetied and I'm curious, not angry, and I'd like to make a suggestion:  

If you're really someone who calls themself a Republican, you're pretty upset.  And perhaps you're upset for reasons you're not really looking very carefully at, and instead you're just lashing out.  Maybe you should think twice, and sleep on it, and then come back tomorrow and start all over again with a brand new username and a fresh outlook.  Because there are a lot of people here who are not what you say they are, and if you've really been lurking here for five months, you know that.  Don't make the mistake that I did yesterday and go off half-cocked, swinging at piñatas and punching and kicking people who don't deserve it, for reasons that are grounded in worry or anger more than sense and fact. Don't make this mistake again.

OTOH, if you're not a Republican, we'll figure that out pretty damn fast -- and even if you are but have a giant chip on your shoulder that makes you want to keep posting things like this projectile vomit that you just cut loose with --  and my advice to you is just to walk away, and walk away now, and don't come back.  Because the next time you're getting a zero from me.  I wouldn't do anything differently to myself.  I've been warned, I've apologized, and I won't tolerate anything less from you.

Think it over.

You said "months" not five months.  Doesn't change my meaning.

How touchy-feely of you.

"If you're really someone who calls themself a Republican, you're pretty upset.  And perhaps you're upset for reasons you're not really looking very carefully at, and instead you're just lashing out."

You're more gracious than I am tonight.  I gave him a "1".  Didn't zero him, because I wanted him to be an example.  

To go off half-cocked sometimes myself.  So for tonight, I'm gonna let this one go.

Same person, different setting, just got a new account is all.

So which of my insights is wrong?  My response seems mostly to have generated spittle-flecked rants, but not much in the way of facts.  Gosh, I've even been threatened with a Zero.  Yipes.  That's some kind of collaboration there.

Redstate claims to be something -- collaborative Republicanism -- it is clearly not.  This is a site for those who enjoy increased power of the federal government over the individual.  It is a site for those who agree, on the whole, with James Dobson.  Not Barry Goldwater.

reading comprehension is not your friend.

Yep by OhSure

Some real overly emotional people here, and other places I've seen. The more radical members tend to let you have it if it's obvious that statements coming from a "newbie" are more of a rhetorical nature. Any seasoned blogger can, with the ease of taking the next breath, identify rhetorical remarks no matter where they are.  The most insanely wild conservative that has blogger know how could easily go to a liberal site and identify who those where that were spewing rhetoric around there as well, even if that spewer was a hard core Democrat.

Interesting articles and viewpoints that may effect the party positively or negatively and the conversations that arise from those are mostly new and take a good deal of thought sometimes. These are the subjects that get the most attention and it's hard to interject rhetoric without it being noticed, because most realize it doesn't really do anything to solve, correct, make better, or make great any particular subject or thing. It does however, make those attempting to discuss an issue lose their train of thought many times and it becomes an irritant.

Believe it or not, many here seek to find ways to make thing better with the Democrats, and many listen very well. Perhaps being too judgemental in such a short time, (because I don't think you've been here very long) is counterproductive.

Just a thought.

P.S. If you at least try my advice, you won't have to go get a new account next time.

Best of luck

What is it about Trolls? Do they really think they are accomplishing anything?

Stickler, did you accomplish anything other than to pull me (I seldom comment) out from the ether?

Did you say anything other than stereotyping all readers of "Redstate" as identical clones?

All I heard was "Here's another troll who thinks he knows it all.

"MoonHat Hindsight Bias" is your disease and it's terminal.

You should read, comment seldom,and learn something. It's enlightening to see everyone jump on Frist when he fails to do his job!

Now that might seem strange to you, especially if you still believe Ted Kennedy can do no wrong.

Well do you Punk! lol

One thing that Nick Danger didn't see fit to mention is the interesting way zero ratings work.  If a post is zero rated it simply dissapears along with all followup posts.  There is no evidence that it ever existed.  There are no settings that can be changed to allow a person to read zero rated posts.

Effectively, this means that a single irresponsible moderator can silence anyone he doesn't like and there is absolutely nothing that ordinary readers can do to even know that someone has been silenced.  I'm all in favor of moderating, it serves a useful purpose.  But when low modded posts simply vanish from sight, with no way to change settings to read them, it just seems wrong to me.  The Slashdot approach, where one can set a threshold and only see posts at or above a certain ranking seems like a reasonable approach.  If the individual chooses he can see posts others have rated low, or he can choose to trust the moderators.  I suppose if you enjoy powertripping that's a feature, not a bug.

The editors all agree that the use of the "0" is fraught with complications. That is the way the software works out of the box however, so we're stuck with it until Clayton does a bunch of work to change it. We know this is an area that could use more finesse.

In the present case, this fellow was having entirely too much fun poking people with pointy sticks. I do that myself sometimes, but if I went over to Kos and did it, I'd get zapped in short order, and he should expect the same here.

the fact that you actually have to defend your position is bothersome to you, yes, you should mosey  on to greener pastures.

Stickler,

I would have zero rated both your ridiculous comments, but for the fact that some of the subsequent replies had valuable material, and I didn't want them to disappear, too. And it wouldn't have been because we silence dissent around here, but as c17wife said, reading comprehension (especially of the original post) has apparently escaped you.

Dissent is just fine around here, but we expect it to be polite dissent. Bomb-throwing dissenters will be shown the door in quick order.

As for pro-choice posters, we have a number (Gengisdon and Amos to name a few), we have quite a few (even among the editors) who oppose the official site stance on embryo destruction (Adam C, Aleks311, dissension in the ranks), and we even have some who advocate drafts and other means often considered extraordinary to help the military (trevino).

The point is, there is quite a lot of diversity of viewpoint here on this site - but one of the reasons that is so is that most people here know how to conduct debate with respect, and those who hold beliefs contrary to the site mission know how to tread very carefully.

You know how to do neither. Enjoy your 15 minutes.

FWIW, the editors and directors check on the zero ratings on a fairly regular basis. We've been known warn moderators for abusing the privilege.

But, like Nick said, it's still something we hope to get fixed in the future.

history of making value- and fact-free posts that have been etherized I can see why you are concerned.

It you don't like the way it works here I'd have a couple of suggestions:

First and foremost, don't post unless you have something to say. Incindiary does not equal insightful. Canards do not equal facts.

Second, if that proves too difficult or tends to take too much effort just don't post and we'll all be happier.

At one point you used to post some pretty good stuff, it's been disappointing to watch your slow slide into the oblivion of trollery. What happened?

Kos doesn't have an equivilant to the Redstate zero rating, and also features user options to ignore ratings.  So go poke to your hearts content, the liberal website won't dissapear your comments.  Additionally, I am fairly certain that some of my posts here have been dissapeared for reasons other than "poking people with pointy sticks", possibly for "retaliatory poking" because I won't be a doormat when other people poke me.

The "complications" really aren't that hard: you've given some users permission to shut up people they dislike instead of arguing with them.  That's your right of course, this is a private space.  But its a bit strange that in a post theoretically intended to help orient people you'd leave out the critical information that some users have permission to dissapear other user's posts.

One other interesting aspect of the whole mess is that while its possible to see who rated a post, the identity of people who give zero ratings is protected. Isn't that nice?  They get to shut you up, and you don't even have a clue who it is who's shutting you up.

Well do you Punk!

Do you know that you're one of the only I've ever seen who didn't mangle that quote?  Most people want to make it "Do you feel lucky punk?"  But it isn't.  He said "Do you feel lucky?  Well, do you punk?" and you remembered!

I've always wondered why the occasional movie quotes get mangled. The other one I usually notice is "play it again, Sam" which is not what Bogart said.

Congratulations, you've made my day.

It takes four zero ratings to disappear a post. So at least four of our 'comment raters' would have to agree about the value.

    Kos doesn't have an equivilant to the Redstate zero rating, and also features user options to ignore ratings.

Kos does not use vanilla, open source Scoop. Kos has been funding the developers to do features for them, which are then proprietary. There is virtually no open source Scoop development going on anymore. Kos has essentially hijacked an open source project and made it theirs.

Others can do the same thing of course, extending the open source base product, but it takes time and money.

In theory, yes - that was also how I understood it to work. In practice, it seems that only one zero rating is enough to make it disappear to everyone who does not have the comment rating power.

For instance, if you click on "review hidden comments" right now, you will see that there are a number that are hidden with only ONE zero.

It takes four zero ratings to disappear a post.

That's not been my experience.  Look at this.  Before the '4', it was invisible.  It has two zero ratings.

1) Any chance of a Kos/RS joint blog?  Maybe not just a free for all mix of the two, but rather a place where the best and most thoughtful contributors to each can engage in reasoned debate about the issues.  It would have to have an assumption by each side that those that disagree are still decent Americans who might occassionally be right, just as you might occassionally be wrong.  

Any takers?

2) What is the deal with the Regan/ketchup thing anyway?  Did the Dept. of Ag. do that or not?  And also, did anyone notice the right/left parallel when the Clinton admin wanted yogurt as a protein?  

P.S. I ain't a real good speller sometimes and I may have done a couple of the words above wrong.  Sorry.

This site appaears to be running a fairly standard Scoop system with the voting queue turned off. Scoop was created for kuro5hin, which I was a paying member of until I got sick of it being the proto-Daily Kos. I mention this because some people constantly insisted on comparing Kuro5hin with Slashdot ("the other site"), and it was dumb every time it happened.

As an aside, I find it amusing to read there, and see that one of the pre-war anti-war arguments was the fact that Saddam had or was trying to get WMDs! And here's just how "united" the hard left was with us on 9/11/2001. And I'm shocked at some of my own comments I'm finding there... In 2001 and early 2002 President Bush hadn't entirely gotten on my good side yet, so I was still on the verge of cutting all ties with Republicans.

Anyway, Kuro5hin is Not Slashdot (and notslashdot.org was once even an alias for kuro5hin.org), and Red State is Not Slashdot, either. Red State, like that early Kuro5hin, needs intelligence and thoughtfulness, not stupidity and laziness. Emulating Slashdot would take the site in just the wrong direction.

Also, thanks to the Scoop engine, all Trusted Users (those who have the power to give 0 ratings) also have the power to see comments hidden by 0 ratings, to give them the opportunity to rate them back over 0 and un-hide them. I've done that several times since ratings were enabled here and I got that TU status (not that I'd often be inclined to do so on your comments).

So you're wrong and your fears are unfounded.

"Kos has essentially hijacked an open source project and made it theirs."

Well, that's kinda a harsh way to put it.  The other way would be to say that Kos has used the free-market system to improve its service/product.  I think most of us are in favor of that.

Maybe Kos and RS can jointly fund some developments in the future?

Anyone can make a site that welcomes left and right.  Many sites already do so (Is Kuro5hin still alive/interesting?)

Getting two sites with biases to create one, though, would just create a new site with its own blend of biases, while a good neutral site would be equally welcome to Libertarians, Nazis, and the rest.

Red State would be better off funding a replacement (preferably based on Ruby on Rails).  It'd be cheaper and more reliable in the long run than anything written for perl and MySQL.

I've seen enough to internet forums to appreciate the value of management.  There is a long history of negative people ruining such communities, all the way back to the collapse of early modem-based bulletin board trees.

As for Stickler's comment, I am pretty disturbed.  The Republican party is a collaboration of Economic Conservatives and Social Conservatives.  In a parlementary system, we might literally be a coalition of two parties.  If this is a site for Evangelicals only, that is prefectly OK, but let's hear it from the bosses.

I was specifically refering to your false statement that if you went to Kos and started poking with sharp pointy sticks you'd be dissapeared.  That statement does not match objective reality, the question of why it doesn't is worth discussing, but does not alter the fact that you falsely claimed that Kos features the same sort of dissapeared comments that exist here.

Kos does not use vanilla, open source Scoop. Kos has been funding the developers to do features for them, which are then proprietary. There is virtually no open source Scoop development going on anymore. Kos has essentially hijacked an open source project and made it theirs.

Since Scoop is released under the GNU GPL the modifications he has made cannot legally be proprietary [1].  If the Daily Kos is violating the GPL I'd like to see them nailed and forced to divulge source.  I like the Kos, but my dedication to GNU-style free software is vastly greater.

Does Redstate use vanilla Scoop?  Its summer, I'm taking zero classes, and I'm not working too many hours.  I've never hacked Scoop before but it might be worth it to toss in a user preference to change the view threshold.  Besides, I've always intended to learn perl but never had a project that required it so I haven't.  It'd be an interesting thing to do for the next month.

[1] Unless technically he isn't distributing his mods.  Under the current version of the GPL I don't think simply running the application on a website counts as distributing.  So its possible he's adhering to the letter of the license, but certainly not the spirit.  I've sent a request for source to his techies, we'll see what the answer is.

He said "Do you feel lucky?  Well, do you punk?"

Not exactly.

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Amen brother. I've bought two Ruby books in the last month and I'm this close to starting something myself.

I just checked the setting and it is indeed only one comment. I've changed it to four - I'm not sure if it's retroactive or not.



My apologies for the mistake.

It'd be cheaper and more reliable in the long run than anything written for perl and MySQL

What do you have against perl and MySQL?  I don't speak perl so I have no idea if its worthwhile or not, but MySQL is pretty nice IMO.  

Judging by your ignorant comment, I don't believe you've been lurking here for even a few hours.

I really don't have a lot against MySQL as such, but I just think it's usually a poor choice because PostgreSQL has less-restrictive licensing and has always been ahead in SQL functionality and data integrity.

MySQL is a very nice RDBMS, but can be very fickle at times (including the 4.1 branch). In fact if you look at the release notes for 4.1, you'll see a number of crashers that are just inexcusable for a DBMS that's been around awhile. And only when 5.0 is released (and stable) will we have some real enterprise level features like views and stored procedures.



Neil can answer his own comment but after working with Postgres for just a little while, I can see some advantages. Rails gives you flexibility in the database backend, which Scoop does not.

Also, thanks to the Scoop engine, all Trusted Users (those who have the power to give 0 ratings) also have the power to see comments hidden by 0 ratings, to give them the opportunity to rate them back over 0 and un-hide them. I've done that several times since ratings were enabled here and I got that TU status (not that I'd often be inclined to do so on your comments).

So you're wrong and your fears are unfounded.

But the posts are still dissapeared for the non-special people.  Like I said earlier, this is your site, you can do anything you want.  But it seems wrong to me that some users can dissapear posts.

I know this site isn't Slashdot, and that's fine.  I was just using it as an example because its easy to see.  Most of the time on Slashdot I read comments with my threshold set to 1.  But the point is that I (not the sysadmins, not the special users, but ME) have the ability to alter my threshold and view all comments including those rated at -1.  Mostly I don't choose to, and for good reason (the GNAA posts alone are worth not reading at -1 to avoid), but its a choice I make.  If you're ok with other people deciding what you get to read that's your business, but I don't like it.

Also, given that Redstate doesn't mention the ability of the special people to dissapear posts in any of its FAQs it seems to be something that the admins here choose to hide rather than be proud of.  The first couple of times one of my posts dissapeared I wondered if I was having problems with my memory, nowhere in the FAQs here does it say "Your posts may completely vanish because someone wanted to shut you up.  There is no way for a normal user to see vanished posts."  If, as you maintain, its a good thing that the special users can dissapear posts, why not talk about it more openly in the FAQs?

There seems to be increased sensitivity to left-leaning comments lately.

Do you feel that even troll-like remarks need to expunged? What's the harm? The reader can always ignore them, especially if they start to recognize the poster. If you feel someone's remarks are over the top why not just ignore them and not comment?

If you are worried that your site will be swamped with irrelevant postings make it a moderated or invitation only forum.

People may feel that the sensitivity to dissenting opinion is an indication of insecurity about ones own ideas.

A robust debate is supposed to lead to the "truth" or at least a consensus. Isn't that the basis of our trial system, for example.

By the way, there is a short article in the Sunday NY Times Week in Review  (July 3) section about how consensus thinking by small groups tends to ignore minority information even when the minority persons have special expertise. An interesting review of group psychology.

most of the complaints about zero ratings. Thanks y'all.

I take it, then, that you are anti-GPL?  Or am I misunderstanding your "less-restrictive licensing" comment?

So which of my insights is wrong?

First, your presumption that your words  were "insights".  There are plenty of Goldwater Republicans here, plenty who are pro-choice, plenty who are small government conservatives, plenty who are fiscal conservatives, plenty with misgivings on PNAC, plenty who are business-oriented instead of evangelical-oriented, etc.  There are plenty of colleagues and commenters who don't agree with me.  In short, stickler, all of your so-called insights are wrong.

I've never tried Postgres, so I can't comment on it myself.  In the few times I've used MySQL I haven't noticed any real problems, but all of my applications were pretty lightweight so they weren't likely to hit any problems.  I'm not a MySQL guru, so I'll take your word for it.

There I was, talking about accurate movie quotes, and I mess it up...  Oh well.

The trollishness of this post is beyond doubt, precisely because it seems this person has never actually bothered to read the threads - else he wouldn't have (farcically) characterized the attitude around here as intolerant and censorious.  

Now me, I'm a lurker not a poster (I'm a lover not a fighter!), but I read this site at least twice a day and explore the majority of comment threads.  Moreover, I would probably be classified as something of a 'moderate' Republican by many here (opposed to abortion but not gay marriage, otherwise socially libertarian, blah blah blah); the point of laying this out is that despite the fact that the editorship is dominated by more traditional social conservatives, I never get the sense that I am unwelcome here. (Is it because of sympathetic temperament?  Because I share the same willies as others around here about the possibility of hearing the words "Justice Alberto Gonzales?"  Dunno.)

I've been impressed - impressed as hell - at RedState's ability to maintain civil, idea-driven discussions both between its conservative/moderate Republican members AND with the liberal regulars who haunt this place. (Heck, sometimes it seems to me the lefties outnumber the righties in some threads - imagine that situation being tolerated at DKos!)

What particularly heartens me is that the site seems to have found a working equilibrium in its moderating rules: despite the bluntness of invoking "Life Is Not Fair," the truth is that the rules around here do nothing to prevent people from expressing any view so long as they don't curse or insult while doing it.  And hell, if you stay around long enough you can probably get away with a bit of insulting too.  Far from "Life Is Not Fair," it's one of the fairest systems possible, preserving the original intent of the site's mission while making honest debate possible.

Well, enough slobbering.  I just found this post amusing because it pretty much inverts everything I've come to conclude about how RedState is run and how its community functions (even for us lurkers).

    can be very fickle at times (including the 4.1 branch)

Why I'm still running 3.23 on all my sites :)

lots of big sites that use MySQL - it's ready for primetime. But unless you're willing to dedicate a full timer to it (like more RDBMS), it can be problematic. Redstate has been down many times because MySQL was hosed.



I'll second Neil's comment about data integrity, also.

And, BTW, I really do not intend to start up a BSD vs GPL holy war, my reply above was just for information and clarificaiton.  While BSD vs GPL is interesting, more interesting than vi vs emacs anyway, I won't start up unless you really want to.  I say "BSD" because the PostgreSQL license looks a lot like the BSD license.

I dislike the FSF's politics and licenses.

GPL by cjkarr

Since Scoop is released under the GNU GPL the modifications he has made cannot legally be proprietary [1].  If the Daily Kos is violating the GPL I'd like to see them nailed and forced to divulge source.  I like the Kos, but my dedication to GNU-style free software is vastly greater.

Scoop can be made legally proprietary with the consent of the code's copyright holder. If Rusty Foster holds the copyright to the Scoop code, then he is perfectly within his rights to allow Kos to start a proprietary branch of the code. Who else has standing to sue Kos over the GPL violation?

Does MySQL even allow subselects yet?  I couldn't live without those.  I can see how very simple DB apps wouldn't need them, though, so you wouldn't notice.

MySQL went the longest time without even supporting transactions...

The harm is that many of us are exposed to that junk all the time, find it annoying or even infuriating, and would like to have at least ONE place to discuss without being bombarded by it.

If Rusty Foster did as many people who use the GPL did and assigned copyright to the FSF then they would also be able to sue.  Otherwise only he would have that right.

Yes, as of 4.1 MySQL supports subselects.  I didn't actually know that until I googled for it, BTW.  I'm not much of a database jocky so I've never used a subselect.

Also, the GPL only requires that anyone who has access to the (modified) executable code, has a right to also obtain the (modified) source code.

Now, I do not know if this is the case with Kos's development, BUT: if Kos does not distribute the resulting "binary" code (yes, I know, it's all a bunch of perl scripts) then he is not required to distribute the "source code".

Fer instance, suppose my company made some changes to the gcc compiler for our internal use.  Now, as long as we never ever give or sell our modified gcc binaries to anyone, we have no requirement to publish our source code mods.  Further, we can even restrict things thusly: we can sell to company B, and give them our modified binaries -- and ONLY THEY would have the right to request our source code.  (I'm not sure if the GPL allows us to contractually prevent our customer from then distributing that source code; but I'm sure the FAQs over at the FSF address the question, along with the distinction between "my company" and "my company's employees").

We get "that junk" from most major media outlets (TV, print media), as well as from the typical rounds I'd imagine most of us make throughout the blogosphere.  

And as I said in my earlier post (see my recent response to stickler's first post), you can still see many/most of those arguments being made on RedState by our liberal 'loyal opposition' members - although, and this is a credit to them, not in their mindless 'sloganeering' form.  The only thing, as far as I can tell, that ISN'T tolerated around here is hectoring, insulting snarkiness from the Left.  If you can't make an argument that isn't crayola-crayon-simple, or isn't larded with insults, assumptions of evil motives, or non-sequitur reasoning...then the problem may well not be with RedState, but with you.

(N.B., I'm using "you" in the general "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" sense here, not specifically aiming it at YOU.)

Additionally, a very large amount of functionality can be implemented within Scoop by using "boxes" - which are essentially chunks of perl code that are stored in MySQL. So, given that Scoop Proper is a bunch of perl files on my filesystem, and that a bunch of Scoop Proper functionality lives as chunks of perl code within the sql code shipped with Scoop Proper, and additionally I can write code (such as my Recommended Diaries knock-off) that lives side-by-side with that perl code in MySQL....



You can see how licensing gets very difficult.



From what I can tell, Kos is not violating any meaningful portion of the GPL. I am willing to bet that a very large portion of the Kos function is in MySQL, which is classified as 'data'. And I've spent a lot of time digging around the html source of dKos. I will agree, however, that Markos' love of Open Source seems more limited to situations where he is the beneficiary.

You claim that the people here (or that conservative Republicans in general) favor increased federal power over individual's lives.  Let's review:

(1) Abortion.  It was not conservatives who federalized this issue and the overturn of Roe would not federalize it either, but would return the issue to the states.  California and New York might stick with the current regime of abortion on demand, but I suspect that Texas and Georgia will recognize the rights of at least some unborn individuals.

(2) Right to die.  The federal involvement in the Schiavo case was an attempt to protect the rights of an individual.  Do you oppose federal involvement in protecting freedom of speech or voting rights or death penalty cases?  You might agree or disagree with the outcome of the Schiavo case, but lots of people (including her immediate family) doubted whether her wishes were being followed.  The standard line from the MSM and liberals was "the government shouldn't get involved...the courts should decide!"  What a hilarious idea.  What are the courts?

As a new liberal around here who is trying very hard not to get a reputation for trolling, I think the idea of an RS/DKos forum is not good at all. DKos is the liberal equivalent of Free Republic.

Perhaps an RS/TPM Cafe forum might work though. TPM Cafe is more cerebral, more strategy oriented and less histrionic than DKos.

I think it's better that we all keep to our own kind in this particular instance.

Last night when I read this guy's post, it immediately fell into the "So tell me, how often do you beat your wife?" category, except that he took it a lot further, e.g.,

"How often do you beat your wife, cheat on her with her sister and brag about it to your buddies, take all her money, force sex on her, mentally torture her and make her tell you that her family is a genetically inferior group of untermenschen, chain your children to the wall in the basement and whip them with a studded belt...etc., etc..."

...which is why I didn't elaborate when I gave him my second "1."  I think it might be useful to amend your article and state that such comments are a red-flag inidicator that the person in question is a troll.  I know we can't make an exhaustive list of troll-worthy criteria, but anyone posting stuff like that on their first post is going to get the spiked-pipe treatment pretty quickly from me, so we might as well let them know.

Yeah, one of the things I hope to get out of the comments on this story is suggestions on how to revise the document to make it better. We may stick it somewhere permanently later.

One of the things I obviously forgot to add was, "Don't go around poking people with pointy sticks." This guy last night was going out of his way to refer to pro-life people as "zygote worshippers" and so on. He knew what he was doing; he was trying to torque people on purpose. Then he gets all upset when people don't respond to his "substantive arguments" and the "post nazis" make his postings disappear. Cry me a river.

Excellent post, Nick

As for Stickler's comment, I am pretty disturbed.  The Republican party is a collaboration of Economic Conservatives and Social Conservatives.  In a parlementary system, we might literally be a coalition of two parties.  If this is a site for Evangelicals only, that is prefectly OK, but let's hear it from the bosses.

It's not just a site for social conservatives.  Social conservatives form a signficant part of -- likely a majority of -- the Republican grassroots.  The same is true here.  But moderates*, and even "liberal" Republicans (in the mode of Schwarzenegger, Guiliani, etc.) also post and are members of the coalition that make up the Republican party.  As I've learned from personal experience (I'm probably best described as a "liberal" or "economic" Republican), they are welcome here -- so long as they actually believe in some portion of the Republican agenda, and are not merely self-proclaimed "Republicans" who exist to parrot Democratic talking points.

So, turning from Mr. Mitchell's comment, however, and to Nick's broader point, please keep in mind some truths:

  1.  First, as for that Republican agenda:  It should come as no surprise that there are some core principles of the Republican party, which define the Republican "mainstream" of today.  Most should be self-evident.  All things equal, Republicans share:  a belief in free markets (and a concommitment distrust of over-regulation); an opposition (to varying degrees) to abortion; a belief that a two-parent family is the foundation of society, and should be supported; support for judges who stick to the actual language of the Constitution, rather than its alleged spirit or living principles; support for property rights; support for smaller government and the lower taxes that result; support for free trade; support for a strong defense; etc.
  2.  If you're a Republican who disagrees with some of those principles, you're a Republican who is out of the mainstream on that issue.  You may think that the Republican party is wrong on that particular issue; you may think that your position is a "historical" or "the true" Republican position on that issue; you may work to change the views of your fellow Republicans on that issue.  But that doesn't change the fact that you're not part of the Republican mainstream -- at least at the moment.
  3.  Take note, however, that sharing a common principle is not the same as agreeing on the same prudential application of that principle.  That is, Republicans can be in the Republican "mainstream" on a particular principle, but still disagree. Even conservative Republicans can have vigorous disagreements over the application of the core principles of the party.  A Krempasky is not a Trevino is not a Thomas is not a Cella is not a Streiff.
  4.  Since I'm tagged (usually correctly) as a liberal Republican, here are some examples:  I'm a moderate on abortion -- my position is unacceptable to conservative Republicans, but I'm probably within the left-flank of the Republican mainstream.  (For comparison, Senator Chafee is well outside the Republican mainstream on this issue; I'm certainly quite a bit to the right of him on this issue.)  I'm pro-CAFTA and strongly in favor of personal accounts for Social Security -- I'm probably a bit to the "right" of the Republican mean on those issues; I'm pro gay marriage -- I'm definitely out of the Republican mainstream on that issue.  I support strict constructionist judges -- so maybe I'm a bit to the "right" of the Republican mean on that issue, for (it seems to me) many Republican conservatives don't want strict constructionists but rather conservative judicial activists.  
  5.  What to take from that list?  Well, the first thing you should take is that Republicans are not the Borg.  Only a few hacks and/or true believers (depending on perspective) toe the party line on every issue -- and, even for such [rare] folks, sometimes there is no party line for them to toe.  Many Republicans split their tickets to some degree; for those who vote a straight ticket, many are voting strategically:  they believe that even a mediocre Republican candidate is valuable because it further supports the Republican agenda (see above).  And some, of course, have drank the Kool-Aid and speak in mega-dittoes** or say that all Democrats are traitors and whatnot.  
  6.  You will, I daresay, find an identical mix among Democrats.  (Indeed, I'd argue that comparatively more Democrats have drank the party Kool-Aid, at least of late.)

von

*Note that, to the coastal observer, "moderate" and even "liberal" Republicans often look like "conservatives."  For instance, although I'm pro-gay marriage, I've been called any number of bad names because I think that the Courts are the wrong place to make such a fundamental (though, in may eyes, positive) change to society.

**As for "megadittoes":  I used to find Rush terrifically entertaining.  So no slam against him.

Over the next couple of days I'll revisit my ratings (including the ones that have recently gone against me) and try to fit them into a framework, so that you can include them in the upcoming edition of Unified Moonbat Theory: Trollratings.  

I think it would be instructive if one of you could provide specific examples of "that junk" from the major media that you feel reveals a liberal (or other) bias.

To make the task not too burdensome perhaps just restrict the survey to those article available online at the NY Times from the Sunday edition.

Just a citation, or quote, to illustrate your objection with a short explanation.

It seems to me that most liberals find the "MSM" either too conservative or too beholding to big business. It seems strange that both sides of the political spectrum think the media favors the opposing view.

Perhaps there is some fundamental disagreement about what role the media is supposed to perform that underlies all this.

The difference between the right and the left, when it comes to the media, is that the right think they're on the right, but the left think they are the center.  So, when the press deviate from the standard left line, they consider it rightward bias.

Also, the left confuse a pro-American bias with a pro-Right bias.  When American press outlets omit stories the average American isn't interested in, the left count thas a pro-Right bias when it's just a market-driven American bias.

Kos does have 0 ratings for it's trusted users.  An average rating below 1 will hide a comment there.  Trusted users can still see it.

I assure you if Nick goes over there and starts poking with his sharp stick his comments will disappear.

Last night was my first visit to this site.  I came over to see what you were saying about Rove.  Being a regular Daily Kos reader, I was somewhat surprised by how polite and resonable most of the comments were.  I was raised as a Republican and remained a Republican until the Clinton impeachment hearings.  I got so angry with what I viewed as being hypocracy by many of the Republicans, that I went over to "the other side."   One of my close friends has been a very active Republican for her entire life.  The amazing thing is that she and I agree about 95% of the time, but that other 5% can certainly get loud.  If it comes down to McCain or Hillary in 2008, I'm not sure what I would do.

I am far closer to the Goldwater wing of the party than the Dobson wing (despite being an Evangelical Christian and would self-identify as a social conservative), and I don't see any real hostility to those oriented similar to myself (or even possibly to the left of me, as I know there are quite a few of them that could still genuinely be called Republicans).  My constructionist view of the Constitution and my advocacy for federalism makes me be a bit more socially liberal than the Dobson wing, but so be it... I think if a state wants to legalize abortion, they can, if a state wants to legalize medical marijuana, they can... that those issues are in the domain of the states, not the federal government (and especially not the courts, which some of the Founders considered the weakest of the three branches of government).  Would I support the measures by those states?  Probably not, but I'd applaud their letting the people of their state determine that on their own rather than leaving it to some robe-wearers very few people actually know (apologies to any judges reading).

People have different views of conservatism, but they're generally accepted, provided they don't turn themselves into flamebait...

So uh, what does this profanity policy mean, anyway? Is it just a "I'll know it when I see it thing?"

So, obviously words you can't say on TV without the FCC getting their panties all in a wad count as profanity. What about bowdlerized versions of those same words with *s and -s?

Also what about phrases like "Shut your ugly wordhole, clown!" Does this fall under the rubric of profanity, as the word clown is used in place of less polite word, or is it unacceptable by a simple hostility filter?

I don't know if it helped, but I made a pitch for you.  You're always saying exactly what I'm thinking.  Happy Independence Day!

You get one frigging warning, and that's all. See? That's how you do it. Also, never say, "Shut your piehole, clown." Instead you say, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries." Think of it as an opportunity to be creative, or to steal from Monty Python, whichever comes to you first.

    If it comes down to McCain or Hillary in 2008, I'm not sure what I would do.

Most of us are opposed to suicide. Moving to Mexico has a certain ironic appeal.

I come here to inform myself, to compare and to look for possible areas of agreement that might span "The Ditch". There are more than you might imagine. I've never bothered to post before since I am not interested in purchasing an argument or even rote contradiction, for that matter. "The Other Side", no matter which side you are on, is often painted in the broadest, most lurid, most unreasonable and most treacherous manner. That is lazy and dangerous thinking in my book and should be actively resisted and shown no tolerance, no matter how authoritative the source...

Welcome to RedState!

While we are discussing hypocrisy, and further discussing the Bill Clinton impeachment, how do you feel about the fact that Perjury is all of a sudden a big deal to Democrats?

Regards

That is the same reason that I came here.  Republicans referring to Democrats as "Moonbats," and Democrats calling Republicans -- ooops, no profanity allowed -- make it hard to narrow the ditch.  

We generally reserve the term "Moonbat" to a very special, Maurice Hinchey kind of Democrat.

I've always had a great deal of respect for McCain, I still do, but what bothers me is how badly Bush smeared him in the primaries -- with out and out lies -- and still he jumped on board and campaigned with Bush.  I know, I know, it's politics.  Heard it might be a McCain/Bush (Jeb) ticket in 2008.  On the other hand, I've never been a "stand by your man" person, and that is only one of the problems I have with Hillary.  Canada anyone?

And how come perjury is all of a sudden not a big deal to the Republicans  -- assuming, of course, that there was actually perjury in the Plame investigation.

Saying it's not.

First, if it's Rove, even if he didn't commit perjury, he's in very serious trouble. I won't stand up and defend him against calls for his resignation, because I think it was inappropriate, whoever it is.

Second, if he did commit perjury, I'm all for him getting the full penalty ascribed by the law.

The only amusing part of the whole spectacle for me will be watching the Democrats scream about what a bad offense Perjury suddenly is.

Which certainly doesn't excuse Rove, but exposes where some very serious hypocrisy certainly lies.

"The only amusing part of the whole spectacle for me will be watching the Democrats scream about what a bad offense Perjury suddenly is."  Actually, they are hoping for treason, but will settle for perjury.  

The problem with the Clinton perjury charge is that it was generated by an investigation into his extramarital affairs.

A Democrat defending Clinton might consider his fooling around reprehensible, but not a legitimate subject for federal investigation.

Let's take the issue away from sex, which excites people's moral indignation, and consider a more neutral example. What if Clinton had stashed chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream in the white house freezer, and had midnight snacks, while publically claiming he was on a diet. Imagine if a federal investigator found conclusive proof of ice cream consumption. The primary problem here is why the government is investigating Clinton's dietary violations.

Democrats perceive that the investigation into Clinton's sex life was hypocritical and exclusively political, with no public interest. There are not parallel investigations into the extramarital affairs of Republican politicians (such as GHWB).

The Rove accusation of perjury (if it happens), relates to the outing of a CIA agent. There may be ways of parsing the statute to say that the outing of Valerie Plame wasn't treason. But it appears like a violation of public ethics. Investigating the outing of a CIA agent is a legitimate use of government resources, and prosecution of a coverup thereof is a legitimate use of government resources.

Clinton's issues with perjury were more than just extramarital affairs.  They were attributed to a much bigger problem, sexual harassment.  Considering the dems screamed about sexual harassment in the DOD (ie...Tailhook, just to name one) and NOW had an absolute cow over Bob Packwood, I think it was disengenous to give Clinton a pass which is exactly what they did.

Your ice cream analogy is just silly.

I actually predicted this response much quicker. I must be losing my touch.

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the legal system knows, the subject of perjury is irrelevant. If perjury of any kind becomes permissible, our system of justice as we know it comes crashing to the ground.

If folks can't be held accountable to their word in court, or can only be held accountable for things that are "important," then there is no point in swearing oaths, and furthermore witness testimony in every single court case immediately becomes worthless, since anyone can say anything in court without any fear of repercussions whatsoever.

If it was "all about sex" and "perjury about no big deal," you kool-aid drinkers should ask yourselves why it was that all nine SCOTUS justices (including the two Clinton himself appointed) boycotted Clinton's next SOTU speech, which represented a rebuke by the court that was completely unprecedented in American history?

For the record, Clinton also suborned perjury and obstructed justice. In other words, he attempted to corrupt a legal trial in every way you could possibly think of, short of bribing the judge. If you think that's "no big deal," I hope to God that you never sue me.

The subject of perjury, even if it is ice cream, is totally irrelevant.

The oath of honesty in sworn testimony must be respected on all points if our judicial system is to even exist.

If the question is irrelevant, and does not matter, then during the course of the trial the appropriate lawyer should argue that the person being questioned should not have to answer the question. If the judge disagrees and orders the question answered, the witness must answer truthfully, or else all trials are meaningless.

The other option, of course, is to refuse to answer the question and be jailed for contempt. Susan MacDougall understood this perfectly well, choosing rather to be jailed for a YEAR than to lie under oath.

Of course, we won't mention that she was taking a bullet for Clinton, a man who had no problems lying under oath, in the process.

"Investigating the outing of a CIA agent is a legitimate use of government resources, and prosecution of a coverup thereof is a legitimate use of government resources," but an investigation of Clinton's sexual dalliances was a total waste of governmental time and money.  Clinton's extra-marital activities in the WH did not endanger any lives, or negatively impact our country.  Like many other Americans on both sides of "the ditch," I'd like to see congress and the senate spend less time disagreeing on everything and deal with issues that are important to all of us.  It is likely that Bush's Supreme Court nominee will totally consume our lawmakers for the duration of this year.  If I and my Republican friend can agree (with a little compromising on both sides) on 95% of the issues, why can't our lawmakers?  

I see that our discussion has become counterproductive to some degree, but I would nonetheless encourage you to go back and research how it was that Kenneth Starr came to investigate the whole Monica Lewinsky thing in the first place - because even though it was only 8 years ago, your memory seems to have been "1984"'ed on this topic.

I think perjury is a big deal, despite my dismissal of it on another thread.  

My issue is with the dems reaction to the possibility Rove perjured himself.  From what I have read, it seems that Rove has cooperated and I'll be surprised if he is indeed indicted for perjury.  If he is indicted, let heads roll as they need to.

Dems are still trying to defend Clinton's unethical and immoral acts today.  That's what my issue is.  

No matter what the underlying subject matter. Every lie is not perjury, but every perjury is the subject of a lie.  Please refresh my recollection as to why Clinton was being questioned about his sex life?  All I recall clearly at this time is the infamous "it depends on the definition of 'is.'"

I'm done with you.

You can revisit the history at your leisure.  Nothing much I have to say will help you to see the light.

I make it a general rule to never argue semantics with one like yourself.

Per Federal Rule of Evidence 415(a), which states that "In a civil case in which a claim for damages or other relief is predicated on a party's alleged commission of conduct constituting an offense of sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible and may be considered as provided in Rule 413 and Rule 414 of these rules." Given that Paula Jones complained of sexual harassment by Clinton, Fed. Rule Evid. 415(a) allowed Jones's lawyers to ask about propensity evidence. It should be noted that Bill Clinton was the one who signed Fed. Rule Evid. 415(a) into law.

I just went off to do a little research and found that.  (After reading through the whole Whitewater stuff.)

and why aren't there government investigations of Rudy Giuliani, Paul Wolfowitz, and other Republican public servants who've been known to have sex outside of marriage.  I haven't researched the rumors about GHWB's longstanding affair while in office, because there's no evidence it is relevant to his public service.

The only reason this topic came up is that someone on this thread asked whether democrats care about perjury.

You're hearing the answer -- those democrats care about honesty in public service.  And they saw investigations of unethical sexual behavior being used differentially against political opponents.

You might not like that answer.

"Actually, they are hoping for treason, but will settle for perjury.

Well, if they are looking for treason they had better be careful in front of mirrors in public places.

While profanity may not be tolerated, rudeness seems to be okay.  "I make it a general rule to never argue semantics with one like yourself."  You don't even know me!  

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/1/103340/5501

"Until you've been around here a while and have established some creds as a serious participant, don't get snarky. Snarky Democrats have a short half-life in these parts, especially if they are new to the community. See the Life Is Not Fair principle for details. In particular, this means you might get snarked, and want real badly to snark back. Don't do it until people understand that you're basically an OK person. This will take weeks."

Sorry if you are offended, but I don't debate the meaning of "is" with those on the other side of the big ditch.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and I are on opposite sides of the big ditch.

Sometimes I get Lucky. Clint's one of the few actors whose movies I enjoy and whose politics I respect. Still I could just as well have mangled it.

I'm still waiting for a new Dirty Harry....I think he could do it. He might have to come out of "retirement" to stay in character but I'm sure it would be entertainment.

Kos by Nadia

Kos does have a zero rating.  If you achieve "trusted user" status not only can you troll rate -- 0 -- but you are able to see "hidden comments," should you chose.  If a comments gets a specified number of zero ratings, that comment becomes hidden, and can only be viewed by clicking on "hidden comments."  I have trusted user status at Kos, but have never bothered to view the hidden comments.  

If you are a "Goldwater Republican", I'm George Washington.  If you are a "conservative", I really need to find some other political alignment.

I have repeatedly stated that Barry is on the Left side of my idealized Republican party.  But I don't have nearly the issues with folks around here that you seem to.

So one of us is out of the loop.  And I had an AuH20-64 bumpersticker on my bike for that election.  Where were you in '64?

Not even a good try!  My "liberal detectors" went off on your first post, and nothing you have said since changes a thing.  You really should practice more.

And don't try to pretend to be a Goldwater Republican when there are real ones around.  It doesn't work.

Yep by Nadia

you've got that right, we are on different sides of that big ditch.  But, hey, I'm a uniter, not a divider.  ;>

I am a democrat.  Don't want to be a troll.  Am new to the site.  Greatly appreciate the rules of the site plus the disciple, commitment to and control of making the comments stay on topic.  

This article and the subsequent posts have been very instructive about the site.  I did not understand the ratings nor could I find any information about this topic on the site until this article.  My suggestion is to eliminate the tech discussion (it was good but not exactly on topic) and add this thread to the site rules that you see when you sign in for the first time.

From the Posting Rules:

The rules are simple. If you have any doubt about whether to use a word or phrase, don't. If you still don't know what that means, don't post. Profanity is not necessary to make a point, add emphasis, or convey a message. There are plenty of other places on the 'net to be vulgar and base, but RedState.org will not be one of them. Thank you.

outside of their places of work?

Forget for a minute that this guy was President of the United States. Anyone else in the entire private or public sector who did what he did would have been terminated. Period. Consensual or not, that kind of behavior is not permissable in the workplace.

Once the civility of a discussion between two people is lessened, it is difficult to stay focused upon that which is most important: the subject matter being debated.

As I understand RedState.org's policy regarding profanity, it is not as much restricting one's ability to speak clearly, but to raise the level of respect each participant displays. In this way, individuals will not forget that which caused them enough concern to comment on or compose a diary in the first place.

Profanity and disrespect only succeed to ruffle one's feathers and raise blood pressure, goals that can be accomplished with more suitable methods than political/philosophical debate.

In an earlier comment to this diary, you mentioned that this article could possibly be displayed in the future. Should this prove to be the case, then it would make a welcome addition to the initial e-mail that a new member might receive, so as to offer an introductory explanation into the goals of RedState.org and its community.

However, I suggest that the order of the paragraphs be changed, so as to create a smoother transition in ideas and terms. For example, were someone to read this article for the first time, they might not quite understand what the term "Known Fact" referred to, as it could equally imply facts as well as assumptions at first glance.

If you were to number the paragraphs after the break, beginning at one, the following order might prove useful:

1 - Like any collection...

2 - If you are coming here...

6 - Leave your assumptions...

4 - Do no assume you can win...

3 - Until you've been around...

7 - Avoid using the diary...

8 - If you haul out...

5 - Certain trusted users...

9 - If you are unclear...

From a cursory glance, there is little that I would suggest in changing of the paragraphs themselves; they were well written, and aptly explained the point intended.

what "Drinking the Kool Aid" means?  It's all over the place and seems to mean the person is delusional or some kind of firebrand.

Also, is there something wrong with Kool Aid that I should  know about?  Sorry to be off-topic.

Ah, by corph

so drinking the Kool-Aid is like being a cult member and committing suicide?  Thanks, but I'm still a little confused.

I believe drinking Kool-Aid refers to the act of falling hook, line, and sinker (do you know that term?) for a view espoused by someone perceived as a leader, regardless of the insanity, or inanity of the view itself.

I suppose it could be loosely phrased as being a sucker and following an idiot.

Tonight is the first time I have ever seen a comment of yours, and I presume you must be pretty new because I lurk a LOT.

After your first post, I hoped they would ban you as an obvious troll.  After the second, I couldn't understand why you weren't gone.  And so it went for the remainder, until now.

Did you really not know that?  Did you really just now go read a reference from another poster and make a reasoned response?  Now I'm wondering if you are not really a troll after all.  

p.s.  I didn't believe you at all when you said you were raised an R and switched to a D for Clinton's impeachment.  If it is true, were you an involved and informed R or just an R because of inertia?

so drinking the Kool-Aid is like being a cult member and committing suicide?  Thanks, but I'm still a little confused.

First response:  C'mon now.

Second response:  I'll assume that you're not a native English speaker, and answer in good faith.

For some reason, the right word is escaping me -- not an aphorism, not really a saw, not  metaphor, not exactly a proverb, not a euphuism (and definitely not a euphemism),* not a gnomic saying -- but "drink the Kool Aid" falls into the same category of sayings as "to fall hook, line, and sinker"; to "put the cart before the horse"; "to give an inch and take a mile"; etc.  That is, it is a saying that is not taken literally, but for it's figurative meaning.

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the Jonestown massacre, in which Jim Jones convinced 900 of his followers to drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide and commit suicide.  (Note, however, that the Official Kool-Aid FAQ states that Jones actually used Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid, laced with cyanide.  As anyone who has been to camp can tell you, Flavor-Aid is a cheap Kool-Aid knockoff, which, unsurprisingly, tastes like a cheap Kool-Aid knockoff.  See:   http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/food/kool-aid-faq.html (item  XX).)  In popular usage, "to drink the Kool-Aid" refers to the abandonment of one's own critical judgement in favor of another's.  As is common in such sayings, it does not imply it's full meaning.  Compare the saying "if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" and metaphors comparing folks to "lemmings" or "sheep", which express similar concepts, but are seldom applied literally; i.e., they are used in contexts that do not include a cliff or cliff-jumpers; lemmings following each other off a precipice; or sheep being lead peacefully to slaughter; or suicide or murder generally.

von

*Von pet peeve number #103:  the automatic (and inappropriate) use of "an" before every word that begins with a vowel.  Sometimes, it is better to use "a".  

Yup -- by von

If that's not it, it's close enough.  Thanks.

that perhaps that the act of those members treading lightly is what gives people the impression that was articulated by Stickler?

It gives those that do not post here as their primary blog, the impression that there is no disent because it is so firmly, and forgive me here for using an imprecise and hyperbolic word:  Muzzled.  

And I am not being snarky here.  But to someone who is not a member of THIS community primarily, I can see his point.  No American should have to tip toe in the way that some are expected to all to readily here, nor should any other American have the ability or power to force them to tip toe.

Now I can understand trying to cut down on the amount of super heated vitriol that flows so easily in some parts of the blogosphere, and there is much merit in that.  But when you have a system that does not punish those that goad an angry response equally as the one that responds?

You get an environment that is just the tiniest bit stifling.  You get people afraid to speak their mind for fear of reprisal.  And that is I know not what was intended, at least I hope that was not the intention.  

Did Sticklers post truly deserve the numbers he received?  Probably not.  Were some of the ratings reflexive and not thought out?  Probably.  Were his points worth considering?  Maybe.  Is how it has been handled illustrative of his overall point?  

Yes.

Will this post likely get rated poorly, even though I have been as respectful as possible and simply asked that those reading spend a moment and actually REFLECT on his point?

Probably.

As Nick pointed out in the article, life ain't fair.  And as long as people just shrug their shoulders and repeat that phrase, life is not going to get any fairer.

Until we stopped getting inundated by trolls who show up here from DKos.  If they want life to get fairer, it's up to them to do it.  They have made the "environment a little bit stifling" with their disruptive posts, multiple logins, asinine and repetitive rehashing of subects that have already been discussed a thousand times, the basic inability to use the Search function, and the outright lies that Stickler told about "lurking here" for "months."  

Posting on RedState is a privilege, not a right, and the editors control the "freedom of speech" on this blog.  If you don't like it, get your own blog.  They're free.

But when you have a system that does not punish those that goad an angry response equally as the one that responds?

I find that there are certain instances of commentators not adhering to the policies of respectful conversation as much as is espoused that new members follow. While you are correct that a certain level of hypocrisy is evident, I see it as relatively slim. I have seen some comments made by Republicans and/or their supporters taken out of the general viewing public due to their inerrant disruption of the discussion at hand just as quickly as if it were written by a Democrat.

You get an environment that is just the tiniest bit stifling.  You get people afraid to speak their mind for fear of reprisal.  And that is I know not what was intended, at least I hope that was not the intention.

I have not found difficulty in writing my opinions on this website. The only thing that has been required of me is to keep in mind the relationship with other posters that I wish to encourage: that of respectful discourse and reasonable debate. Respect occurs not only in the delivery of one's points, but in the research that has gone into them so as to assure their validity, whereas reason occurs when, after having been proven wrong, I acknowledge such to be the case.

You do have valid points in your comment, and, personally, I see very little reason for why a trusted member of RedState.org would rate it poorly for expressing them in the manner which you did.

too precise in his process of arguement and defense of position. Nothing inflamatory offered, yet difficult and reasoned inflections  presented without malice, (without proper research) to deal with.

He has an honor about him, and presents a lucid and sagacious arguement without malevolent overtones.

a priori; it will not work in this case. Self displacement from the arguement will not overcome an intellect such as this.

Let's give him a chance to speak freely as he has asked and see of he can maintain this level of intellect and respect. Perhaps prejudgement on both sides should be tempered.

Sorry if he/she got that impression.  The comment was intended to support what he was saying, not to go after him.  Writing fast, doing too many things at once, as usual.

I think people of opposite perspectives SHOULD be able to argue/debate without getting personal or insulting.  Personally, I have no problem with profantiy, but I do not agree with using it if it makes others uncomfortable, and I think a ban can be a good thing so that debate does not get too hostile.  THe absence of this ethos is why I cannot allign with either party.  The first post shows the problem even more clearly.

I've been following darksyde's thread about his treatment here at RS over on kos.

He has had a couple of comments back and forth with dissentor2004, who I guess is probably our very own dissension in the ranks.  Anyhoo, dissentor just gave him this little piece of advise:

"You just farted in a Republican Pizza Parlor.  When people said "hey! you smell funny, did you just fart?"  You continued to loudly fart in their faces.  

You should stay here and keep preaching to the choir.  Missionary work is not your forte."

FWIW-I think that line is just priceless!  It would add quite a bit of humor to your otherwise already witty piece.  

Just a thought.

Not much more needs to be said...

Hasn't DU been berated for doing exactly the same

thing? (well except the profanity part).

The owners can do what they want, its their site,

but I think they need to step back and ask if:

a) the volume of 'trolls' is unmanagable

b) there aren't better ways of dealing with the

   troll issue.

Personally, the number of comments on here seems

fairly light, especially compared to something like

slashdot.

Second, given the big "PROFANITY IS NOT TOLERATED"

why not first add a large "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS"

In fact, you should also remove the 'post' button

and force everybody to preview their comments

first.  This also allows you to once again prompt

the user with 'are you responding to a troll?'. A

/. like 20 second timer before a post can be

submitted might also cut back on some of the

less than thoughtful one line responses.

I (and many others) have bashed DU for their own

idiotic rules on what is or is not acceptable or

viewed as trolling by the right.  Hopefully RS

doesn't go down the same path.

Actually, you're wrong with at least current version of GPL. Either you give only your customer the binaries -AND- give them the source code at the same time, or you have to let EVERYBODY have access to the source code on request. It's a fine point, but explicit in the license.

I would say my views are pretty much along the lines of yours.  I ran for state assembly in NYC and it didn't matter what I believed or stated just being a republican was reason for them to call me any number of nice things.

The best was when a group of democrats spit on one of my campaign workers and called us nazis.  Mind you I am a Jew and one of my volunteers had his yamulka on at the time.

I applaud this site for setting some rules on postings.  I think sensible democrats like my wife have some valuable points and when it comes right down to it occasionally have some good ideas.  The ones that want to call  you *(^&&^ and think that debate means to insult and offend should not be posting.

Even that windbag Bill O'Reilly used the term (with photo) in his diatribe tonight. Why not just call it what it is -- a prime example of peurile, hackneyed English that's become a substitute for original thought and language.

Reviews inform that there are very few right wing blogs which permit comments at all. After reading the troll cautionary, they failed to mention that those few that do apparently don't like contrary views or challenges. This one is any case seems to be just another unthinking echo chamber of antiliberal tripe. Goodbye.

Except for all of the thoughtful, insightful, and engaging stories, diaries, and comments.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service