Skinner: gives primitives an account of Skins's island vs Big Jerry's salon

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3090328

Oh my.

Skinner  ADMIN Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 02:49 PM
Original message

Your donation dollars at work.
   
Here's a more legible copy of the letter which was posted in another (now deleted) thread. It is from our lawyer, and it was sent to the administrator of a website which shall remain nameless.

As you know, we take your privacy seriously. For that reason, we ask that all of our moderators sign a moderator confidentiality agreement. (You can read a copy of the agreement here.) A little more than a week ago, an anonymous person claiming to be a former moderator from DU showed up on another website.

We checked all of the claims made by that person, and found that none of our former moderators matches with the history of service claimed by this individual. It is our belief that this person was not a DU moderator. Nonetheless, on the off-chance that he or she really did serve as a mod and did sign the moderator agreement, we feel that we have an obligation to our members to make sure that the moderator confidentiality agreement is enforced. Thus, the letter below.

after which the letter; sorry, but one has to swim over to Skins's island to view it

Protecting your privacy. Your donation dollars at work.

There's a few primitives at the bonfire right now, nothing more than the usual posterior-kissing and a promise by the always-broke crooked tale primitive to donate more and more to Skins's island.

I'm sure there'll be more later.

[DixieBelle]

So if they can't confirm he was in fact, a moderator then he's not breaking their agreement.

I love a conundrum.

[bijou]

[Rebel]

Just want you guys to know, your privacy isn't sacred here. It's for sale to the highest bidder. 

[DixieBelle]

Sounds like a first amendment case for the ACLU!

[Wretched Excess]

um, did $kammer's lawyer really just send a cease and desist letter to some guy to make
him stop gossiping?

[Rebel]

um, did $kammer's lawyer really just send a cease and desist letter to some guy to make
him stop gossiping?

Yeah. Someone needs to send that moron some Vagisil.

[Chris_]

Just want you guys to know, your privacy isn't sacred here. It's for sale to the highest bidder.  :evillaugh:

Works for me.  But would you succumb to a threat?  From a shyster?

[Chris_]

Shouldn't the Law Firm be Wee, Cheathem &  Howe?

[franksolich]

Shouldn't the Law Firm be Wee, Cheathem &  Howe?

What I can't figure out is why my fellow alum deleted the address of the law firm.

I think I'm pretty good at blacking out only harmful information; I don't understand why Skins felt it necessary to black out harmless information, because, well, law firms are pretty prominent things, their addresses easily found.

That was really stupid, blacking out the address.

All the other stuff blacked out, appears to be wisely blacked out.

[franksolich]

So.....I googled it.

It's a Washington, D.C. law firm, its address on the internet and in telephone books.

That's just really stupid, blacking out commonly-available information.

[Wretched Excess]

So.....I googled it.

It's a Washington, D.C. law firm, its address on the internet and in telephone books.

That's just really stupid, blacking out commonly-available information.

yeah, nothing spectacular, or even interesting . . . other than their areas of practice:

Howe, Anderson & Steyer, P.C. practices in the following areas of law:
Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Black Lung, Captive Insurance, Copyright, Corporate Law, Government, Insurance Defense, Labor and Employment, Leases, Legislative, Mine Safety, Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations, Professional Liability, Resorts and Leisure, Trade Association, Trademark.

kinda odd.  I wonder which on $kammer fits into?

[Chris_]

So.....I googled it.

It's a Washington, D.C. law firm, its address on the internet and in telephone books.

That's just really stupid, blacking out commonly-available information.

yeah, nothing spectacular, or even interesting . . . other than their areas of practice:

Howe, Anderson & Steyer, P.C. practices in the following areas of law:
Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Black Lung, Captive Insurance, Copyright, Corporate Law, Government, Insurance Defense, Labor and Employment, Leases, Legislative, Mine Safety, Nonprofit and Charitable Organizations, Professional Liability, Resorts and Leisure, Trade Association, Trademark.

kinda odd.  I wonder which on $kammer fits into?

Black Lung and Mine Safety, silly!

[franksolich]

kinda odd.  I wonder which on $kammer fits into?

Given the incestuous nature of Democrat and liberal politics, it's probably an old college classmate of Skins's, nothing more than that.

[Chris_]

and is for the most part fabricating the content of his or her messages

Except for the "for the most part" portion it sounds almost like someone talking about TiT.

[Ralph Wiggum]

So.....I googled it.

It's a Washington, D.C. law firm, its address on the internet and in telephone books.

That's just really stupid, blacking out commonly-available information.

It is or at least was available without being blacked out at BigJerr's stink-hole last night.

[franksolich]

That bonfire's turned pretty big.

bigbrother05  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message

37. Skinner, I am having a hard time following this, If former DU moderator, can not be recognized as a DU moderator, and he/she is just stirring the pot, why silence a person for having an opinion. Requesting the private info from another site, because they talk about the practices of this site, whether true or false. If this is the case, then DU is not the site, I thought it was, what about freedom of speech.

I would hate to think that DU would release info on me, because they didn't like what I was saying.

I understand the policy, but your header Your donations at work, when your policy clearly states that if a moderator, breaches the contract, that they will be held responsible for legal fees.

If you can not confirm or deny the mod worked for DU, then why all the legalese.

DaDooRonRon  (214 posts) Tue Apr-01-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #40

57. How do you know he/she is misrepresenting?
   
The site in question is one of several I read, and it has never struck me as being one to not cross its "t's" and dot its "i's".

Like a previous poster, the fact that this (DU) site has so quickly moved to attack it for what may be be dubious reasons give me great pause.

Perhaps I am wrong as to what this (DU) site professes to represent.

Is anyone afraid of anything?

I hope not.

Flabbergasted  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message

48. They have now removed the "offensive material"

quadriga  (215 posts) Tue Apr-01-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #48

50. Who is "they"?
   
I am completely lost here.

jonnyblitz  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #50

52. the site that shall not be named .

baldguy  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #52

78. Seems the whole site is down.
   
No great loss.

uppityperson  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message

61. I don't understand.
   
On the 1 hand, if the "former DU mod" was not a mod, they were just pretending to be a former Du mod, and what they said, as an anonymous internet poster, should not be taken seriously, but it was malicious against DU?

So, are they going after everyone on every other website, news, blog, that has spoken out against DU?

On the other hand, if they were a true former mod, what they are disclosing is false information, so they need to stop giving out false info since this violates their agreement to not disclose information, even if it be false?

I don't get this. Yes, I had the link sent to me, and I didn't read much of anything beyond a lot of what I see here as normal infighting.

You are trying to silence dissent? But the dissent is probably giving false info, but with the purpose of gossiping negatively, and amongst people on another website? I really don't get this.

Shit, go after O'reilly or Rush or those guys. Or make sure everything posted here is absolute truth. People are going to talk and I really don't understand how or why you would go after another forum for talking badly about you. Are we going to get Obama or Clinton "cease and desist" papers, stating people are posting "with the obvious goal of harming" their client?

As I have told people here, if you don't like the rules, you are free to leave. Now you want to control other forums? I really don't get this.

Shakespeare  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #61

64. I agree; and now the site is apparently gone or down.
   
I saw the thread in question, too. As a former mod myself (under my old nick, Not_over_it), I found some of the info believable, some not, but on the whole entirely harmless (I don't see the gossip quotient being a big deal--god knows that happens at a number of other sites).

If the admin of the other site felt so threatened as to take the whole site down, however, I find that deeply unfortunate. :shakes head:

DaDooRonRon  (214 posts) Tue Apr-01-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #61

70. Thank you
   
This action scares me.

I would use the term "Rovian" in that it wraps itself up in the "we're doing this for YOU!" cloak that is a right wing trademark.

This posting on the other site (and I read ALL of it) is nothing more than message board stuff.

My Spidey Sense is tingling - and NOT in a good way.

Skinner  ADMIN Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
81. Allow me to explain.
   
As you know, there are a number of other websites where people go to complain about Democratic Underground. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinions, and they are welcome to post them wherever they like. I do not concern myself with what people post on other websites about me or about Democratic Underground. People email me links to things posted about DU on other websites all the time, and normally I don't even bother to click the links because it's none of my business.

But in this case, it was my business. As I said in the letter, we checked everything this person said, and it doesn't check out. We don't have any former moderators who match this person. But even so, this person's posts raise a very big red flag...

He or she claims to be a former DU moderator who signed our Moderator Confidentiality Agreement.

And why do we have a moderator confidentiality agreement anyway? We have it because our members made it clear to us that they were concerned about moderators having access to their private information. And rightly so.

And sure enough, when some of our members saw the messages posted by a person claiming to be a former DU moderator, they contacted me and asked if I was serious about enforcing our Moderator Confidentiality Agreement.

Believe me, I don't get any pleasure from having our lawyer send letters to other websites. I would much rather spend my time doing other things. But for us, this is really a no-brainer. The bottom line is this: Are we going to enforce our Moderator Confidentiality Agreement or not?

CatWoman  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-01-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message

77. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
   
love it!!

just LOVE it!!!

Kick ass, Skinner!!!!!!!

[DixieBelle]

Well if what "former DU mod" said is true, skimmer's problems go a lot deeper than enforcing some silly confidentiality agreement. There were a lot of accusations regarding dishonesty and downright malicious actions committed by the all powerful mods themselves. Which would mean violating a confidentiality agreement is the best thing that could happen to DU. I mean after all, who watches the watchers? Skimmer isn't.....

[TheSarge]

Robert J. Weil
(202) 296-5680
email:  rweil@haspc.com
 
Mr. Weil has served as defense counsel to a number of professional liability insurance carriers during his 18 years of private practice in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Connecticut.  As carrier-appointed defense counsel he has litigated errors and omissions claims made against insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents, architects, engineers and attorneys in both state and federal courts.
In addition to insurance defense litigation, Mr. Weil works closely with a number of non-profit organizations located in Washington, D.C. and across the country.  He has advised and counseled non-profit organizations on a wide variety of issues relating to employment practices, contracts, tax, antitrust, insurance and corporate governance.

In addition to addressing non-profit organizations on employment-related issues, insurance and various risk management topics, Mr. Weil has conducted a number of seminars directed to insurance professionals on the subjects of loss control, claim prevention and employment practices and discrimination liability.

Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Weil served as a legislative aide on the staffs of several members of the Florida delegation to the House of Representatives.

[Bondai]

Robert J. Weil
(202) 296-5680
email:  rweil@haspc.com
 
Mr. Weil has served as defense counsel to a number of professional liability insurance carriers during his 18 years of private practice in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Connecticut.  As carrier-appointed defense counsel he has litigated errors and omissions claims made against insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents, architects, engineers and attorneys in both state and federal courts.
In addition to insurance defense litigation, Mr. Weil works closely with a number of non-profit organizations located in Washington, D.C. and across the country.  He has advised and counseled non-profit organizations on a wide variety of issues relating to employment practices, contracts, tax, antitrust, insurance and corporate governance.

In addition to addressing non-profit organizations on employment-related issues, insurance and various risk management topics, Mr. Weil has conducted a number of seminars directed to insurance professionals on the subjects of loss control, claim prevention and employment practices and discrimination liability.

Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Weil served as a legislative aide on the staffs of several members of the Florida delegation to the House of Representatives.

Ambulance chasing liberal....

[djones520]

Something that caught my eye.  The letter states that DU is an LLC.  Didn't it have that revoked recently?

[franksolich]

Something that caught my eye.  The letter states that DU is an LLC.  Didn't it have that revoked recently?

It appears the registration or renewal was filed late, or something like that.

I'm attributing it to ordinary human negligence; Skins was too busy trying to "manage" the primitives, or the attorney was attending too many cocktail parties sponsored by special interests.

I'm sure it happens a lot, nothing malicious about it, only careless.