Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Zimm_Man_Fan

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 6,972

About Me

The last one to serve on the last jury before this joint takes its rightful place in the land of the 404 error, be sure and turn off the lights. See yah.

Journal Archives

Sure, if they're civil and honest. What's (accurately) described in the banning message

here on the part of the poster being banned was neither, and the poster was quite rightly shown the DU door:

More hidden posts than any other DU member, a position she held consistently for weeks (also a position she held regularly on DU2). Numerous attempts to drive a wedge between LGBT DUers and Feminists. Did not seem to like LGBT DUers very much; defended transphobia on a number of occasions. Tried to bypass being blocked out of threads by repeatedly editing her remaining posts. Tried to bully potential Jurors into leaving her disruptive posts alone by repeatedly posting rude callouts of Jurors in the Help & Meta-discussion forum. Was a constant fixture in flame wars in that forum. Repeated attempts to badger the Admins into banning people via the alert function. Constantly surly and rude, iverglas had become pretty much the epitome of "making DU suck." She received an enormous amount of feedback from other DUers indicating that she was disruptive and divisive and was given ample opportunity to modify her approach, but instead chose to believe that the problem was everybody else on DU.
For more information see Terms of Service

Skinner
(Administrator)



Remember the scene in Star Trek II where Carol Marcus asks Captain Kirk

"I don't understand. Who's responsible for all this? Who is 'Khan'?" and he replies "Well, it's a long story"?

Well, "HoF" is a long story in about the same way, for most DI'ers. "HoF" as an acronym stands for the "History of Feminism" group over at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1255

When DU went "live" with new software a few years back, that group was asked for by a group of feminists and set up by the administrators of that site in good faith. It quickly became a place where DU's more radical, angry, and bitter feminists would gather to make alert-stalking war on the rest of DU that, through their non-stop prowls about the place, they found insufficiently deferential to their agenda.

They soon fell into fighting among themselves for some obscure reasons, and that in-fighting spilled out onto the main DU forums with predictable flame-war chaos. One of the founders of HoF, DI's very own "i verglas," was shown the DU door by none other than one of the owners of Democratic Underground himself, "Skinner," aka "Naveed" here at DI, as a direct result of her own preeminent role in stoking and flaming those thread wars all over DU.

That banning led to great rejoicing among the vast majority of DU members, with one of the longest and most-posted to - in fact, it was the longest and most-posted to such event at DU evah - "grave-dancing" threads Democratic Underground had ever seen: most people over there were glad to see her go. But a small core of hardcore DU HoF posters remained loyal to her, and commiserated and whined around in the "HoF" DU group about her quite proper and deserved banning for months on end.

This entire sequence of events was also noted, followed, and at over at many conservative websites whom keep an eye on DU, including one I belonged to at the time.

Jump ahead to 2014, and DI is founded: the DU-banned "i verglas" (she went by "iverglas," no space, over at DU before being banned) shows up here, and her sycophants and fans from those long-gone DU HoF days both showed up and signed-up to DIscussionist to swoon over her, and relive the old glory days. They soon fell right back into their old bad habits of alert-swarming here at DI that they'd briefly enjoyed at DU before the Admins there had shown their ringleader the door: here, as the membership is mixed between conservatives and liberals, these tactics aren't so disruptive as they were over at DU.

Anyway, that's a (very) short history of "HoF" and their tactics: I just got through surviving one of their alert-swarms this very evening, but they are equal-opportunity offenders: they often go after liberal members of DI who don't kow-tow to the extreme RadFem line as often as they do Righties like me.

So, there you are: a brief history of HoF.

Don't back down from them, but watch yourself when dealing with them. They don't "deal" honestly, and that should be kept in mind: they are not interested in DIscussion or debate, but in shouting down or censoring voices they don't like - just like they once did back at DU. And they alert-swarm.

A word to the wise is always sufficient.



Did you miss it? I know it was up there in my reply to nolens volens:

1. I am never going to post to or about that poster again, unless they post directly to me,

That was a post to nolens volens, NOT YOU, with a clear statement that as long as you didn't directly post to me, I would never again post to you. And yet here you are, doing just that: posting directly to me in a reply I made to another poster, not Shredded Hedly. As you were well aware that I had publicly vowed to never post about or to you again unless you posted directly to me, yet you went ahead anyway and did EXACTLY THAT, who is "stalking" whom?

And this is the one and last time I will ask you stop stalking me.

See previous.

Next time I will address the administrators.

You go right ahead and do that: they can follow a sub-thread, such as this one, too. In the meantime, quit sending unsolicited replies to my posts to other DI members, and you'll never see me show up in your "My Posts" bar again.

Got it?

you need to find a hobby and the ignore button is your friend

Good advice on both counts - I urge you to follow it.

P.S. As this is hopefully the last time we will ever interact on DI again, I can't help but note that you don't dispute a speck of what I stated in my reply to nolen volens.

Not. One. Speck.

That's a good place to leave it between us, because I had the facts on my side (once again), as shown.


Your vote was correct: "speaking as an aussie with a vested interest":

http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=86941

I had to step out for a bit so I didn't have time to reply to any of this stuff you're being told, but it's not accurate. Here is the complete post to me in that thread:

speaking as an aussie with a vested interest

I find your concern over our* sensible gun laws touching.

If you scroll down from there, you will see that not once does the poster in question - who initiated the post to me, not the other way around - take the opportunity to disabuse me or anyone else of the notion she herself first put forward when she said "speaking as an aussie with a vested interest."**

Myself, the term "vested interest" implicitly meant in that context (the clear implication of the reply was that she knew more than I did about it because she was Australian) that the poster was somewhere very close to the scene of where all of this was taking place, or at the very least in the country itself. That's pretty much how anyone would take that to mean, I reckon.

Indeed, later on down that sub-thread we get the following references to "aus" as if the poster lives there FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES:

...you can be sure that every Muslim currently living in aus will be faced with the wrath of hell. We're*** patriotic that way...you don't really know what you're talking about regarding aus...you don't know what you're talking about regarding Australian culture?...again your ignorance on the subject of australia is noted... It's good to know the situation in Sydney has been resolved

As can be seen there, not the slightest hint that poster was anywhere but Australia in that sub-thread. Now the stuff about California later was mostly tounge-in-cheek, as can be seen by my in this very thread. Happens all the time, one poster joshing the other over what appears to be inconsistent posts.

No one was or is implying anyone is "lying"; just having some fun at someone who first claimed to be an expert on Australia telling me why my opinion about it was wrong, and then doing the same thing in another thread to another OP about California mocking THAT OP's acquisition of a gun permit (see here: http://www.discussionist.com/10228233 ).

Seems to me for a poster who likes to mock others ("la de da...Congrats on getting a permit for something that any numb nut can operate.") that same poster has an awful thin skin when someone half-heartedly mocks what appears to be inconsistencies in their own posts. And note, even in that CA gun permit OP we didn't get a clear "I was raised in Australia but now live in California" - but it was moot anyway because I exited the thread and didn't return.


No one is trying to "silence" anyone other than the poster in this very thread who alerted my non-hideworthy post above. But, just so it's clear and announced publicly: 1. I am never going to post to or about that poster again, unless they post directly to me, thus disposing of the phony "stalking" and "silencing" charges - we will never interact on DI again as long as the poster does not post directly to me, and 2. I thank you again for your jury vote: it was the correct one.

Them's the facts; thanks again for your time.

* , ** & *** = all emphases added.

Nope. If I park my car in your garage, and you decide you don't like

the house you live in for whatever reason, you don't get a "right" to burn your house down with my car in it.

You have two moral and decent human being options:

1. Deny my vehicle entrance to any part of your domicile in the first place, or,

2. Wait until after my car has been pulled out of your garage to put the torch to it.

You said:

If the state interferes in a woman's decision to terminate her own pregnancy and compels her to continue it, it is a violation of her right not to be deprived of life and liberty without due process, as you put it in your own Constitution.

Nope: before Roe v. Wade every single U.S. state that prohibited abortion-on-demand had a process in place to grant "due process" for any pregnant person who wished to terminate said pregnancy. The bar was high, as it was quite rightly considered that a human life was at stake - kinda like the quite high bar Western liberals insist we adhere rigorously to when it comes to terminating the life of a convicted murderer via the death penalty.

Choices are available to whomever wishes to avail themselves of them: myself, I've never known a person to get pregnant outside of applied scientific technical means by any process other than a male ejaculating sperm into a woman's vagina - with one notable exception. We can discuss the horrific outlier of rape in another context: that's not what we're talking about here, or, really, is an issue at all when it comes to the vast majority of abortions.

Abortion is complicated. Abortion is tough. It deserves to be hotly debated, and decided by democratic choices by legislative bodies in serious consideration and contemplation of their responsibilities. Abortion is not some slam-dunk beyond-the-purview of duly-elected governing bodies "right" that should never be questioned; by the same token. a good deal of consideration and sympathy should attach to women who feel compelled to have one, outside of those simply using it as a lazy form of post-hoc birth control.

Fresh Dispatch from Gun-free Canada, "Eaton Centre shooter verdict:

Christopher Husbands found guilty of second degree murder."

Christopher Husbands had a busy day on June 2, 2012. He had lunch with an old teacher. He smoked some pot. He bought a new jacket. And then, while waiting for his girlfriend to pay for dinner, he murdered two men.

On Dec. 17, one week to the day before Christmas Eve, a Toronto jury found Husbands’ guilty of two counts of second-degree murder in the public killings of Ahmed Hassan and Nixon Nirmalendran. He was also convicted of five counts of aggravated assault, one count criminal negligence causing bodily harm and one count reckless discharge of a firearm.

*snip*

On a busy Saturday afternoon two years ago, Husbands fired 14 rounds from an automatic pistol into the bustling food court at one of Canada’s busiest malls. The gunshots caused a near riot. Terrified customers fled in panic. A pregnant woman, nearly trampled, went into labour. Connor Stevenson, a 13-year-old boy, took a bullet to the skull.

When the chaos cleared, Hassan and Nirmalendran lay bloodied, their bodies torn apart, on the food court floor. Hassan, hit by four bullets, died right away. Nirmalendran, once his killer’s good friend, hung on for several days before succumbing to his wounds.

More at link:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/17/eaton-centre-shooter-verdict-christopher-husbands-found-guilty-of-second-degree-murder/

Husbands had previously been released on ridiculously low bail for a number of other charges in the past, and had a sexual assault charge on his blotter. When he went on his shooting spree in a gun-free country he'd just had a number of weapons charges in gun-free Hamilton, Ontario dismissed by the prosecutor only weeks before. By Canadian law, Husbands will eligible for parole in five and a half years.

Police surround 2nd home after suburban shootings

SOUDERTON, Pa. (AP) — Police hunting for a man suspected of killing people at multiple homes surrounded houses in two different towns on Monday.

The man was suspected in as many as five deaths Monday morning at three different homes in Philadelphia's northwest suburbs. Police with armored vehicles and rifles surrounded a home in Pennsburg after spending several hours at a home in nearby Souderton.

More at link:

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/TV-station-5-dead-in-shootings-near-Philadelphia-5957791.php

"Very Disturbing" hostage siege in Sydney

Sydney, Australia was gripped with terror Monday when police responded to a reported hostage-taking siege at a cafe in the central business district.

*snip*

Television and still images from the scene showed several people inside the cafe holding their hands up in the air, pressed against windows, with a visible black flag bearing what appeared to be Arabic script.

*snip*

Photographs posted on social media showed people within the cafe standing at a window and holding a black flag with Arabic writing.

More at link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/14/sydney-hostages/20411269/

Very disturbing, indeed.

Not A Biggie, Just Curious

This morning I received a somewhat obnoxious (though far from alert-worthy; that isn't what my OP here is about) PM from a member regarding a thread I participated in last night. The PM was from someone "on the other side of the aisle," so to speak (and to say the least), and he basically wanted to continue the debate from yesterday evening with me on behalf of his ideological compadre, who had lost the debate and left the thread.

It struck me as odd that he would do it via PM, rather than just wading into the thread itself, so I replied in kind and went on. But then it occurred to me that the member in question is on a "timeout," and has been since Oct. 17: he won't be able to post again until the end of November.

I thought that those on "timeouts" couldn't send PM's, besides being unable to post replies or OP's? It seems when I was on a brief "timeout" for having two hidden posts in the same day it said I couldn't post replies, OP's, OR send PM's. I looked through the info provided on juries and the like and didn't find an answer, so thought I'd mention it here. Not a big deal either way - I didn't mind the PM in the slightest - just curious.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »