You bring up good points, Dutch, but let me expand on my original reasons for the degree of mole that was used.
First of all, the mole I used was never supposed to be a real "mole," in the sense where you couldn't tell a mole from someone like, say, Stinky the Clown. Someone who would literally have no reason to be considered as "radical" as Ban. In fact, it was supposed to represent the END RESULT of progressive policies. In fact, "progressive" is PRECISELY the word that describes these yahoos on DU, because they "progressively" accept socialist doctrine at incremental dosages.
There is an old saying: To boil a frog, you just can't throw it in boiling water. If you throw it in the scalding water, it will IMMEDIATLY jump away once it makes contact with the surface of the boiling water, with the result the frog is not boiled. So how to do it? You have to put it in mild water, tepid, so that the frog will accept and in some ways be comforted by the water. Then heat the water SLOWLY, occasionally pausing the heating process as the frog agitates a bit more. Once the frog settles down, apply the heat more and more. The frog will agitate every now and then, but never show enough resolve to get out of the water. As more heat is applied, the frog becomes "progressively" acclimated, until it is so weak, that you can turn the heat up at a greater rate, and boil the frog.
BantheGOP represents the "throw the boiling frog into the water" effect. In short, the issues posited by Ban were extreme, and stupid sounding, EVEN to the rank-and-file DU idiots. That was my intent, and my purpose. Now, MIRT and company are looking for these frog boilers all the time, but I had the advantage in that, as a libertarian-minded individual, I understand the end result of every progressive position, while the DU minions have very little clue, so I was able to repeatedly flirt with that edge time after time...over a thousand posts.
But I ALSO know that outsiders come and look at DU. Lurking, perhaps, but I'd like to think that these people may have seen some of Ban's posts. I do not use the feelings-oriented adjective "extreme," but rather, I use the objective adjective phrase "logically conclusive" in describing the result of progressive positions, and tailor the posts around Ban's rhetoric to effect that vision. In this way, I'd like to think that some people on the left who still had a modicum of intelligence could somehow connect the two, and hasten their decision to repel the left's progressive tenets. Of course, such an action can never be quantified or even reasonably estimated; it's more a "gut feeling" on my part based upon human nature in general.
As an example: The post that broke the camel's back, so it were, was about describing how whites should be perpetually in debt to blacks for the remainder of time, and should pay money all the time for this shame. While it was widely poo-poohed, and in fact got me banned, this yo-yo came out with what is now credible leftist propoganda:
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1W-UT1sr4E[/youtube]
This person's recommendations for whites to always "check their privilege" (in addition to telling everyone to constantly give money to black causes) is PRECISELY the reasons I gave in that last post! Now, I had posted before the Zimmerman verdict, and this rally had been conducted as a result of the verdict. In short, had I posted what I did AFTER this video (and of course would have referenced it in the post), the original post itself wouldn't have been judged as extreme.
Now, that's not Monday morning quarterbacking, per se, but had I not been banned, I would have included this video in the thread, or start a new thread if the topic were banned with this video. There were dozens of similar situations.
Anyway, I hope this more comprehensive analysis made things less muddy. Probably not, but what the heck, I'm old-school and think that digital identities are not worth the pixels they are written on.
