The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [sic]

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:15 pm

Agreed. Even if they weren't started that way they serve the function once taken over, like the CIA's current occupancy of the Scientology empire. I can't help but see a Skinner Box when I read of DU admin 'Skinner' while other people think of the principal on The Simpsons. Classic double meaning plausible deniability, ay? Naw...

by **joyofsox** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:24 am

Me: Why was my 9/11 thread about forming a separate non-9/11 conspiracy folder deleted? How am I suppose to get the word out to people that I want support on this? And how are people supposed to know I am working on the suggestion/mission statement? (Do I have to email every person who posts to a forum individually?) Also, I wouldn't mind if the questions I raised in that locked thread (and in several emails to moderators) have been consistently ignored. Thank you. ----------------------- Mod: Because our rules say that you should get admin approval if you want to suggest a controversial group. ----------------------- Me: I thought the rules were to get ten donors to support starting a new group and then prepare a mission statement and submit that to the admins. In fact, this is what Skinner says at the very beginning of the FAQ: ************ Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-12-04 11:44 AM How to Suggest a DU Group Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 07:10 AM by Skinner One of the best things about DU Groups is that members have the ability to suggest new groups to the Administrators of Democratic Underground. If you wish to suggest a group, please follow this procedure: 1. Start one discussion thread in the forum of your choice to tell people about your idea for a DU Group. ... ************ Is that not correct now? If it is wrong, what do I have to do to get approval to suggest that non 9-11 topics be moved out of the 9-11 folder? ----------------------- Me: Ahhh I also see this: "If you are considering a DU Group on a controversial topic, the Administrators would appreciate if you contacted us before collecting your ten members, so we may discuss any sensitive issues." This did not appear to be a rule, more of a courtesy. So what should i do? ----------------------- Mod: You shouldn't do anything, because we're not going to create that group. Sorry. ----------------------- Me: Okay. Can I get an official explanation for why threads about aliens, chem trails and people's cats (all of which I linked to in the locked thread in GD) are dumped into the 9/11 forum? Why do threads that have nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with 9/11 get put in the 9/11 forum? (Why not dump them in the "Israel/Palestine forum or "Activist HQ"?) What is DU's official explanation for this? ----------------------- Mod: That is the only forum where we permit conspiracy theories, so that's where we put them. And we have no interest in legitimizing more conspiracy theories by creating another forum for them. If we didn't permit conspiracy theories in the 9/11 forum, we would have to shut the whole thing down. ----------------------- Me: I'm not sure what this means. Close the 9/11 forum? As you must know, there are plenty of threads in the 9/11 forum that are based on mainstream news reporting only. Anything to do with Paul Thompson's Timeline is about as far from conspiracy as possible. He reports, backed it up with existing links and does not speculate. Anyway, thank you for this exchange -- I'm not sure what else to say at this point -- except that DU's stance on this (and its dismissive attitude towards 9/11 research in general) is very disappointing. I would expect that a board with the word "democratic" in its name would be more open-minded. ----------------------- I did not receive a response.

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:24 am

They effing BANNED you? JeeZusss... I read all 97 comments -- Seems like almost half were utterly stooopid nit-picking and full of self-righteous prattling about what is 'acceptable'. One idiot spent a coupla hundred words excusing the much-too-late air-defense response by mangling everything that is Standard Operating Procedure about the dozens of Air Force intercepts that happen every year within about ten minutes. And yet NOBODY called him onnit -- but blasted you for your 'evident' troll-MO in posting a diary that 'disrupts' the site; Another idjit complained about 911 Conspiracy Theories that didn't look at the evidence and blah-blah-blah -- while failing to note the CT with some of the biggest problems is the 19 AlQaeda hijackers directed by Osama-theory. I agree with Chiggerbit -- DU and KOS operate as honeytraps. "There's NO evidence that the official story about 9/11 appears to be a conspiracy theory - there is no evidence that they failed to look at RELEVANT evidence, that they ignored ANY evidence that disproved their theory, or that they jumped to ANY unwarranted conclusions." -- apparently making up definitions to suit one's conclusions. How about the 6 living hijackers the FBI 'identified' and haven't corrected? The whole ISI-Atta $100,000 connection. The 3 out of 4 found-but-unacknowledged Boeing black boxes at the WTC? The 6 ongoing wargames being directed by Cheney, including NORAD? (and WHY wouldn't the Air Defense crews charged with protecting American airspace be at their NORMAL state of 10-minute readiness?) WHY would the air-defense crews when finally contacted fly at below cruising-speed? WHY wasn't the WTC treated as a crime scene? HOW did Jeb Bush et al. know, why did he accompany the FBI (or whoever it was) when they collected all Huffman Aviation records within 24 hours of 911? The CIA-owned front-company Skyways cocaine-smuggling aircraft linked via Titan with associate (Makram Chams) of Mohammed Atta and Moussaoui and friends in Venice (As outlined by Hopsicker -- and who was recently spuriously maligned for his investigative efforts by Citizen Spook--) Related: WHY is the FBI covering-up the mysterious, suspicious goings-on by alleged terrorists in Venice, Fla? What ABOUT those Fort Detrick-origin Anthrax letters sent to leading Dems and a Fla.-based rag that made hay with Bush scandals -- and that intimidated Congress to pass the Patriot Act unread, and substantially modified (which Congress wasn't informed of) from the version that had been in Committee? --and that's just off the top of my head re: serious questions that remain about incidents linked to 911. One can't even ASK these questions without acknowledging at least a degree of official complicity in covering-up critical information that connects with 911. And to that extent, it disgusts me no-end that some people are such scaredy-cat dimwits and undisciplined 'thinkers' they can't even discuss these questions without freaking-out about 'distractions' caused by anything that has the taint of 'unauthorized' 911 Conspiracy Theories. I suppose this may be --at least partly-- due to the legacy of tarnishing legitimate 911 topics with the wacko-stamp of no-plane and pod-plane and hologram notions. It's not an accident that so many American high school 'graduates' (and even college grads!!!) can't explain why winters are cold, or find Iraq on a map, or what an anticline is -- let alone know the critical difference between a theory and an hypothesis. (And why so many kids are encouraged to drop out before graduation). A dumbed-down polity is a helluva lot easier to manage and bamboozle. Starman

by **stickdog99** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:52 am

The email I sent dailykos.com asking why I was banned (no reply received a week later): (personal info introduction) .. From the lack of posts I found and the responses to the few that I did find, it became apparent to me that posting stuff like "Bush did 9/11" is not welcome at daiykos.com. But I didn't think that would affect me because that's not what I think anyway. Still, I have a few simple, obvious, completely rational, nonspeculative and fully legitimate questions about the events of that day (basically, why did Bush keep reading to those kids, why didn't Rummy get to his command post, why did Gen Myers not know or lie about the NORAD timeline to the Senate on 9/13, why did NORAD issue two more timelines, why did the 9/11 Commission issue its own NORAD timeline, why was NIST unable to recover any metal from WTC-7 for analysis). These questions do NOT imply any conspiracy. They do not imply BushCo complicity in 9/11. They certainly do not imply that BushCo made 9/11 happen. What they do imply is that BushCo may indeed have something to hide about the events of 9/11, events that they have successfully used to implement: 1) an insane invasion and occupation, 2) an Orwellian state of neverending warfare, 3) an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional separation, balance and oversight of powers, 4) rampant and bald faced war profiteering and a huge increase in dubious mil/intel/security expenditures, 5) an insane doctrine of military pre-emption, 6) torture and rendition, 7) a culture of authoritarian secrecy, 8) the persecution of political dissent, 9) enraging the Muslim world and alienating the rest of the world, 10) etc., etc., etc. while doing little or nothing to enhance our security or address the root causes or symptoms of Islamic terror. Considering this, I wanted to post a diary to provoke a discussion considering the pros and cons of the political strategy of promoting rational, nonspeculative questioning of 9/11 -- the upshot of which have served as 98% of BushCo's ass covering for the litany of heinous policies and misadventures they have foisted on the US public ever since. Although I hadn't read your FAQ at the time (and I admit that I would have been more sensitive about not discussing anything even a whit outside of political strategy in my comments if I had), I have read it in its entirety now. And having read it, I fail to see how my diary: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/30/4910/85589">www.dailykos.com/story/20...4910/85589</a> somehow resulted in me getting banned from posting any more diaries or comments on Daily Kos. Here's my version. I'm a newbie who doesn't know how your rules are enforced in practice but is completely willing to learn. I post a diary that I feel is worthy of discussion and completely within the bounds of what is acceptable on your site. And instead of engaging me in polite discussion and/or clearly explaining to me what can and cannot be discussed here, a small number of posters simply ominously warned me to delete what I had written or jumped down my throat. When I asked them to explain further, I fear they then must have baited me into somehow breaking your rules so you would ban me from your site (although nothing I posted appears to break any of your posted rules). Here is what your FAQ says about this: "Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of 'conspiracy theories', i.e. 'JFK was killed by Martians'. The rule for posting such diaries is 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is." What I wrote does not apply. I clearly made no extraordinary claims about what happened on 9/11. In fact, I made no claims whatsoever about what happened on 9/11. And I have 100% documented, fully sourced, officially admitted backing for every question I brought up about 9/11, and I only brought up these questions in response to challenges made to me (and never debunked in any way, I might add) in the comments. More from your FAQ: "Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned." I'm not a repeat offender. I made my mistake(s?) (if what I posted was indeed outside the boundaries of what is allowed here) on a single day, responding to a single diary post. So why have I been banned? More from your FAQ (this part from Kos): "I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community. So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge. This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it." Once again, I ask what I posted anywhere ever on dailykos.com that isn't 100% reality-based by even the strictest MSM and official-source-approved definition. Bush sat there. Rummy did everything but go to his command station during the crisis. General Myers lied to the Senate about NORAD's response on 9/13. And, for some reason, NIST didn't recover a single piece of WTC-7 metal for physical analysis. All of this is 100% documented and admitted by official government sources. And if bringing up this stuff at all is why I was banned, why did the same people who hid my comments bait me into mentioning these questions? IMHO, I was railroaded and tricked into getting banned by a small group of people whose behavior serves to protect BushCo from any and all 100% legitimate and 100% rational discussion about the events of 9/11. In the minds of this small group, the official theory of 9/11 is like the Bible to fundamentalists and to question it in any way -- even its inherent contradictions -- is to commit blasphemy. Their behavior in exploiting my ignorance as a newbie to get me banned from Daily Kos proves the point of my diary entry more strongly than any further words from me could. Sorry to be so long and strong-winded about this. Basically, I'd like to be reinstated. If what these posters did to me does indeed reflect your website's policy on discussing 9/11 (that questioning the official story in any way, no matter how reality based or how tertiary these questions are to your main point, is a bannable offense), then I will certainly and happily respect your wishes in the future. I have plenty of other political interests, and there just isn't that much that I have to say about 9/11 within your community that wasn't already covered in my last diary. Any feedback or advice you could give me would be appreciated. I realize that this is your website and you can maintain it however you please. Thank you for your consideration.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:48 am

I would expect that there are spychiatrists analyzing even how people react to being banished as outsiders from a cyber-community just as they are being analyzed as insiders. MIT has a big project analyzing online behavior and we know about the NSA's and other alphabet agency proclivities. The internet is digitized human behavior, a spychiatrist's and mass mind manager's wet dream. The task sequence in CIA interrogation manuals which is common to all mass mind control and influence professionals is: -Screening...to determine the subject's prime motivation -Disorientation...to confuse them and make them vulnerable -Regression...to induce a child-like state of vulnerable angst -Transference...to get them to see the controller as relief source -Compliance...to make the subject obey in exchange for relief The military industrial media elite developed the internet and the middle-class, who are the resistance to the elite, were the first ones to show up and spill their guts all over it for the spychiatrists and name-keepers. The first step, screening, is what the internet is all about. It also is the first step that the military takes to occupy a region, inventory who is who within it. Remember that when mourning what DU has become.

by **stickdog99** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:35 am

Don't forget myspace.com in this equation, Hugh Manatee. A whole young generation is now being socialized to broadcast everything about themselves -- from their politics and social views to their real names, photos, plans, neighborhoods and schools -- to hype themselves on the internet so they can get more friends, do more fun stuff and get laid more often. Care to guess where all of this innocently self-announced info is going? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 6/6/06 1:37 am

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:10 am

Yup. Besides surveillance there is social engineering. The idea that 'everyone has a secret identity' is also being sown with acceptance of Big Brother and CIA recruiting being the social values to be reaped. I'd charge the US government with First Degree Reap.

by **DrDebugDU** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> by vcmvo2 on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:22:15 AM PDT No CT diaries at all from anyone at anytime for any reason unless and until you have incontrevertable proof of such. Proof that has not been debunked here a half a million times already. Don't use funky sources like Wayne Madsen and Capitol Hill Blue. Don't just repeat your suppositions based on the scurvy, incompetent and previously criminal behavior of BushCo on other matters....What did I forget? Oh, yeah- delete this diary...it's a bannable offense. The men who question power determine whether we use power or power uses us- JFK 10/26/1963 <hr></blockquote> I love the signature of the brown shirt poster. I guess he never read his own signature. For whom is the diary offensive? I love the "proof" argument. Heard it too many times already. Please provide proof for the Official 9/11 CT. Edit: always forget that if I don't login until I post, that ezcodes are turned off by default. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 6/6/06 4:15 am

by **BannedfromDU** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:45 pm

Yes, the "smug-arsed, anonymous, unreachable "Moderator""... ... he is the entity who banned me. I was a donating member in good standing (over a year) and had good interactions with many posters there, but one day I was banned for having the nerve to actually question its decision to lock a thread claiming a post of mine was unfounded 'conspiracy'...what was this unfounded conspiracy? I was replying to a poster who asked a question about the FACT that Bush claimed on multiple occasions that he saw the first plane hit live on TV before entering the classroom. Links to the CNN transcript were called 'links to conspiracy sites'. I then asked, "is CNN now considered a 'conspiracy' site?" BAM, I was banned. What a dumb ass control freak. Can't handle the truth, censor it. More curious is the 'why'... many who seek the truth of 9/11 have been banned.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:45 pm

Proof will always be controvertible to those who badly need it to be.

by **BannedfromDU** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:54 pm

Ha, pope Skinner...I asked for a clarification as to my banning (I had been posting there on similar subjects for some time before my sudden banning)but have never received a reply. No matter how assinine or unjust, the arbitrary fickle nature cannot be questioned, and posters are at the mercy of the shadowy whims of their controllers' agendas.

by **BannedfromDU** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:13 pm

Yes, MoPaul & Bpilgrim were banned...unbefuckinglievable....great posters in good standing with members...what was their preoccupation...notice a trend?

by **Pissed Off Cabbie** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:36 pm

We should have a DU day, where we flood the front page with 9/11 posts, and keep it up throughout the day. I doubt if they have enough mods to keep up.

by **Bismillah** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:38 pm

I'm constantly struck by the jawdropping backasswardness of this alleged requirement to be Miss Marple. Whenever dead Muslims are the designated culprits, the burden of proof is deemed to rest with those who would venture to doubt their guilt. "Go on - prove they didn't do it!" Shameful.

by **Bismillah** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:43 pm

Pissed Off Cabbie writes: "We should have a DU day, where we flood the front page with 9/11 posts, and keep it up throughout the day. I doubt if they have enough mods to keep up." Now, that's a VERY good idea - and it would be evn better if the United Flooders could be persuaded to keep strictly clear of the catastrophically timewasting "physical evidence" stuff. (Unfortunately, I can't take part in such a project, because I'm banned already. But it's really an idea worth thinking about.)

The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [sic]

Re: Sticky flytraps and honeypots.

Re: my conversation with a DU moderator

Re: zappa

Re: The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [si

Re: The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [si

Re: The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [si

Re: MySpace and youth internet.

Re: Stickdog

Re: The Ongoing Disgrace of Democratic [sic] Underground [si

"incontrevertable [sic] proof"

Re: Escape from the Vatican Dungeon

Re: mopaul tombstoned?

DU

"incontrevertable [sic] proof"

International "Flood DU" Day

Who is online