Letters to the Editor
-
ironocrat, I disagree.
As one who has probably prematurely accused people of being trolls, I would like to suggest that it's not just about whether someone disagrees with you. It's more about tone, frequency, and willingness to respond respectfully to actual points. One is MUCH more likely to notice that someone is trolling if that person disagrees with him or her - but that is not the definition of a troll, as far as I have ever seen on ANY Salon thread. Where have you seen that?
I notice some of my favorite posters over the years - Juliebird, Slackie, AKA Smith, doloresflower (and what ever happened to orbitboy? and Rich Emery?) - come into threads and have energetic, emotionally charged, intelligent conversations with people who disagree with them, and receive equally energetic, emotionally charged, and intelligent answers. No one accuses any of these people of being trolls. Ever.
But I have been ignoring W.E.S. for months, because he or she has the manners of a two-year-old. That might not be exactly the same as being a troll, but it sure is irritating. I would like an ignore feature too, but there are only a few people I would put on my list. I bet they are the same people most other people would put on their lists, too. Just as my favorite frequent posters, listed above, are pro-Clinton AND pro-Obama, some of the people on my fantasy "ignore" list are anti-Clinton and some of them are anti-Obama. The point is not what their beliefs are. In fact, most of them don't really appear to have beliefs, even though they troll against one candidate or the other. Their only belief is that the conversation should be about them them them.
Would you use an ignore feature if it were available?
-
supa dumb
I can think of one scenario where the idea of our wise, gray-headed Party Elders stepping in and restoring "sanity" at the Convention might not hold much appeal: when we have a contest between a popular candidate who is young, and running on the idea of radical change from the status quo politics of old, versus a popular candidate who is a (dyed blonde) gray-headed Party Elder running on (her) vast experience in the status quo politics of old.
Good thing we'll never have to deal with that situation. I mean, then those super delegates might have a wee conflict of interest, doncha think?
Also, about this notion being promulgated by Hillary supporters that Florida is somehow slightly less hinky than Michigan, and should therefore count: No. Uh-uh. Not happening.
Clinton supporters who claim they would be calling for the same form of "justice" were the situation reversed, are either self-deluding, or liars.
We've got to do this right, which means do-overs for both, with costs split between the state parties and the dumbass DNC for not foreseeing this effed-up mess in the first place. The people of FL and MI must be heard, and the candidates must be allowed to compete.
Anything less would be un-American, not to mention, illegal.
-
Hillary's baseless attacks on Obama
First, last week Barack Obama and Deval Patrick recently talked about the attacks Hillary Clinton was launching on Barack Obama's speechmaking abilities, and Deval Patrick gave Barack Obama permission to use the rhetorical flourish that Barack used. By the way, Barack has never claimed to write every word of his speeches. Hello, the man employs speechwriters. So does Hillary.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/obama.patrick/?iref=mpstoryview
Also, the London Sunday Times reported that Hillary Clinton's campaign circulated the "cult" myth as a way to scare voters:
"Clinton’s camp has been circulating stories criticising the “cult” of Obama in the hope of portraying “Obamania” as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, “Media figures call Obama supporters’ behaviour ‘creepy’, compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers”. It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382295.ece
-
Hillary's Iraq Vote
Was a pre-candidate's defensive measure against the reputation of pussies that the democratic party had become.
-
melthough
This is a derail so I'll state in advance that I won't continue this discussion.
However, no, I wouldn't use an ignore function.
The posters you mentioned are the exception to the rule... I think if you can't take an argument, you may as well not be posting on the Internet. Sure, W.E.S. steps over the line, but most do at some point.
The letters threads are largely devoid of genuine trolls and the few that show up are not difficult to skip over.
Besides, the content is so varied that a universal ignore would be harmful to the browsing experience. Brightstar65 is a good example... he/she is terrible in politics threads but is a real laugh in Broadsheet. If you then make the ignore function thread-specific, how much use is it really? I personally may browse a letters thread for a max of an hour in a day.
So no, I wouldn't use an ignore function - I have one built into my brain.
-
Please, indeed
Why is this so tough to understand? Does anyone in the media notice that poll after poll, Obama kills McCain and McCain beats Clinton?
And nine months ago, Clinton was destroying Obama in all the polls.
November is exactly that - nine months away - and no matter how much you Obama maniacs insist that it's justaroundthecorner so why doesn't Hillary just give up already, it ain't gonna happen, so chill.
-
Considering the Salon track record
Of promising that Ned Lamont would be the next Anglo Saxon Superman, I tend to not pay a lot of attention to these prognostications.
-
Adam Nagourney and the NYT
Sometime in the last week or so, Nagourney wrote that Clinton got more delegates than Obama did in Michigan and Florida. That's a very sloppy, misleading statement because Obama got zero delegates in Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot. Had you written in a vote for him, it would have been discounted. Shouldn't Nagourney have been more careful? Shouldn't his editor have noticed? Shouldn't the NYT hold itself to a higher standard than Fox?