The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on November 20, 2012, 02:55:12 PM
-
Oh my.
--from the closed meta forum, hence no link.
MineralMan (48,641 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:54 AM
A now PPR-ed DUer claimed that I have active accounts at Free Republic and Conservative Cave here in Meta yesterday. That thread is locked, so I cannot reply to it.
I had an account at Free Republic at one time. I was banned there in 2006. That site never deletes accounts, even when someone is banned. This information is known generally at DU. There is an article in my DU Journal apologizing for things I posted on that site in 2004.
I have never had an account at Conservative Cave, and never will.
I had an account for two days at Old Elm Tree, where I was trying to defend myself against lies posted there. I deleted that account after those two days.
I have no active accounts on any right wing websites, and post about political issues only on DU. I have no plans to change that.
Old, inactive accounts on other sites have nothing whatsoever to do with my presence here on DU.
^^^one wonders what the mineral oil primitive has against us.
We're nice people here, on conservativecave.
FSogol (14,412 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:58 AM
1. Don't worry about it.
That guy had some serious hatred issues. It is really funny when a "new" member shows up complaining that Sid is from Canada, you used to be a Repub, and starts rehashing old arguments. I'm surprised he lasted that long.
MineralMan (48,641 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:08 AM
5. Well, I think transparency is important, so I wanted to make a direct statement about those claims. I am not anonymous. The links in my signature line make that clear.
I am fallible, however. I have apologized for and attempted to explain things written years ago. I can do no more than that, except to be openly and consistently supportive of what I believe in. That's my record here on DU, and it's all available to anyone.
freshwest (22,426 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:46 PM
15. There are a number of them. I don't think they're really 'new.'
They're only here to complain about DU and its members, Democrats, etc. They have no solutions, only disrupt. Glad to see that particular one PPR'd.
antiquie (269 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:04 AM
2. We love you anyway,
as long as there is no recidivism.
If we aren't here for each other, why are we here?
pintobean (7,354 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:05 AM
3. I don't think this is a good idea.
<<franksolich thinks it's a great idea.
MineralMan (48,641 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:09 AM
6. Perhaps not. I'm not going to reply any further in this thread.
hlthe2b (44,671 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:15 AM
8. Feel heartened by the results of that jury alert that hid the thread & led to his MIRT-delivered PPR
It would appear that attacking call-outs are still not acceptable to many of us here, no matter how fashionable it seems to have become in META....
what if I had proof positive that MineralMan had accts at freep and CC?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240167568
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunde...boutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards[/url].)
YOUR COMMENTS:
Poster has no other purpose than to attack another DUer, including his supposed exposure of information that the target himself has already and repeatedly acknowledged. No matter how DUers may feel about the subject of this attack, this kind of crap makes DU genuinely SUCK.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:40 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: It is a direct attack and that is against the rules. Hide.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I am going to say call out. Even though many duers have decided call outs are alright, I am saying, no.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I disagree with the alerter. I, for one, didn't know that MineralMan had multiple accounts out there mocking this site. It would help serve the DU community if people are given fair warning that there are, indeed, anti-Democratic Party members infesting a Democratic Party community to create their own little "Operation Chaos". Most people who come here come to debate topics and believe others are like-minded.
Major Hogwash (12,347 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:12 AM
7. It's a conundrum.
When a lying liar lies, when he lies about lying, when is it not a lie?
glacierbay (2,256 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:08 AM
4. Ha
What irony, h/she got booted while thinking that h/she was outing a troll. I love it. Eh, don't worry about it, it seems to be no big deal and the Admins obviously don't seem bothered by it.
closeupready (18,067 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:27 AM
9. As a gay DU member who has participated here since 2004, you did own up to these facts, you apologized (sincerely, IMO), and you are absolved to go forward and don't do it again.
Lots of people here seem to enjoy holding grudges. That is simply not healthy.
Even setting THAT aside, politics is not about perfection; it is about effectiveness. As an example, here in New York state back in 2010, marriage equality legislation passed with the approval of upstate Republicans who had previously been opposed. Were it up to some here to have made it happen, it wouldn't have, IMO, since the record of those whose support would have helped was imperfect.
Point is, you're fine.
Bluenorthwest (21,470 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:48 AM
10. Not this shit all over again...
Of course those of us you lied to directly and then never made amends simply do not buy a word you type about the when, where and what of your anti minority posts.
You got all huffy at me, insisting that you'd supported marriage equality 'for decades' vehemently inisisting this was the case then later you admited that until 2005 you were authoring horrid libels against gay people and others. When I asked you why you had lied to me, so strongly, repeatedly and without so much of a hint of regret, you never responded.
Most dishonest person I have known in any setting. Mendacious for sport and for jollies it seems.
And you simply will not let this shit go. You spent years writing horrid shit about good people. You should expect that will follow you about, in fact if you seek redemption, you should seek it out and deal with it, not get all bent out of shape when your admitted history is brought up.
Makes DU suck very much, and has for months on end now, your drama and your 'former' crusade against gay people.
I wish you would just stop it. You previously promised long and hard and with great flourish to never post an OP in Meta again. But you do, constantly. Enless repeats of the same shameful crap. Again and again you bring it all up.
Bonobo (18,339 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:52 AM
11. I don't see how "Look at meeeeee" threads are even "Meta"...
BTW, it wasn't just anti-gay. He was advocating for Kerry to be defeated "on the issues" (his words). I wonder what those issues were.
FSogol (14,412 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:56 AM
12. Except he didn't bring it up. This clown did:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240167568
Bluenorthwest (21,470 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:10 AM
13. Right. Uh huh.
This thread brings up the whole thing all over again. Same bullshit. Again and again and again. Again it asks us to take the word of a known, admitted, unrepentent liar. You feel free to do just that. I do not have to.
NCTraveler (734 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:44 PM
14. I do think posts you admitted making on another forum are fair game.
"Old, inactive accounts on other sites have nothing whatsoever to do with my presence here on DU."
That being said, you have responded to them beyond what is necessary. But if others want to mention them, ohh well.
hrmjustin (3,643 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:57 PM
16. I though what that guy was doing was mean spirited.
Many people who post here may have had other views earlier in life. That guy was just plain rude to you.
HappyMe (7,291 posts) Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:16 PM
17. Don't worry about it.
Ignorant troll is gone.
Some won't let this go, but that is their problem.
-
Who can wade through all that horseshit? Besides I thought MineralMan had an account here, name was "Rockman." Brilliantly clever disguise.
I could just be spreading rumors, though. O-) :-)
-
Who can wade through all that horseshit? Besides I thought MineralMan had an account here, name was "Rockman." Brilliantly clever disguise.
I could just be spreading rumors, though. O-) :-)
Not to worry; that member's account links to.....well, a "certain" primitive.
I dunno why primitives bother lying; they always get caught.
-
So many heretics, so little time. Gotta love the dump.
-
I'm still waiting for grantcart to make his first post here. His account is getting cold and stale.
-
I'm still waiting for grantcart to make his first post here. His account is getting cold and stale.
And so's the sparkling old dude's.
-
And so's the sparkling old dude's.
One must not forget Pedro either.
-
One must not forget Pedro either.
So many accounts.
So few balls.
-
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I disagree with the alerter. I, for one, didn't know that MineralMan had multiple accounts out there mocking this site. It would help serve the DU community if people are given fair warning that there are, indeed, anti-Democratic Party members infesting a Democratic Party community to create their own little "Operation Chaos". Most people who come here come to debate topics and believe expect NAY DEMAND others are like-minded.
I don't get the logic here.
So the misfit votes to leave it alone lamenting the fact that there are moles, so the idea is to leave a mole as a warning there are moles?
:confused:
-
I don't get the logic here.
So the misfit votes to leave it alone lamenting the fact that there are moles, so the idea is to leave a mole as a warning there are moles?
:confused:
Seems like the juror had a reading comprehension fail on the effect of the voting options, to me.