Huffpo goes Ban Crazy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the antis are so venomous, it's hard not to retaliate after a while. One doesn't hear much reasoned debate, because all the antis really have are insults and lies. They usually start when you present them with something they can't refute, which happens all the time, or ask them to cite a source for their information. They get insulted and consider it harrassment.

The point is, if nobody goes there to confront them, the lurkers and fence-sitters, and noobies, never get to hear the truth. Actually, the flaming isn't as bad since they moved it to Huffpo. But that only applies to the Brady Blog. The other anti-gun blogs on Huffpo are awful.
 
This is the internet. Contrary to popular belief, what they say can't hurt you. A calm, reasoned response, rather than making unfounded claims about the antis, goes very far. Simply badgering the Brady plants with vitriol of your own does nothing.

Correction- it does do something. And that something is that it takes away from your argument.
 
"A calm, reasoned response, rather than making unfounded claims about the antis, goes very far."

"Unfounded claims"? What unfounded claims would these be, specifically? One thing none of us ever do is lie (unfounded claims) over there, and I challenge you to come up with just one example of any of us having done so. If any claim is unfounded, it's the one you just made. We don't need to make things up. We do, however, catch them in one lie after another. And if you think we simply badger them, then you aren't paying attention. Or maybe you also think asking them to cite sources is harassment.

But if you think you can have a reasoned debate with someone like Kelli, and do a better job than those of us who have been at it for a year and a half, then do it.

BTW, I think I remember you. Aren't you the one who was cracking on Kelli's parenting skills?
 
Last edited:
A Little Story

There was a poster there, username MSorgy. His name is Michael. Michael is taking college courses in law enforcement. He's already been through a police academy, but he has his sights set even higher.

Michael is a very nice guy, and a good debater. He's probably the only one of us who NEVER lost his temper with those people, including Kelli. At worst, he was civil to them. Most of the time, he bent over backwards to be kind, patient, and understanding. They banned him 2 weeks ago. His name was on the 'Hit List' that Kelli sent to Huffpo, when she announced that she was quitting for the 1st and 2nd time. Kelli's list contained the names of every pro-2A supporter on the blog.

Funny, because Kelli herself was banned twice recently, for her inability to control herself. She changed her username and email, and snuck back on. But Kelli is easy to spot, regardles of which of her half-dozen usernames she's going by (currently it's 'drurylane'). She's back again. She is using a different IP, but the moderators over there know who she is. They haven't banned her again, yet.

We think she probably contacted Helmke, and had him call Huffpo. She claims to be tight with him.

BTW, several of us, including myself and some other THR members, were banned merely for complaining about censorship. As matter of fact, I wasn't even complaining about censorship, because I knew they would ban me for that. I only notified them of the recurrance of technical difficulties on their site. I guess they took it the wrong way. The Euro-libs are very touchy people.
 
Last edited:
I signed up at Huff. When it is so easy to do long debates about degrees of effectiveness approach the irrelevant. If we keep doing what we're doing we lose.
 
I'm seeing some new names and excellant posts over at Huffpo. Thank you. Well done.

FYI, Josh Sugarmann (VPC) has a blog there too.

Mike
 
Picard and Sweating banshee, thanks for the support on huffpoo (I managed to get back on under djkrlsn (first and middle initial and the consonants from my last name the way my grandfather spelled it). I am one of those that post opposing Paul Helmke as a way of trying to inform the people reading the comments that are on the fence. For those that are in the middle trying to make up their minds about gun control, one thing that is obvious is the games the antis are playing with sources (like kelli telling her opponents to look up "guns" on the NEA site when she was asked how the NEA defined "child" and bragged about the 163 entries that came up). Mike thanks for the 411 on swellkell--her being good buddies with Paul Helmke explains how long she lasted with all the nasty attacks she was posting NOvember and December,
 
Some boards are more banhappy than others. I would say this board is kind of in the middle.

On one end of the scale are the chan type boards that pretty much tolerate anything except child porn. People go to such places to offend and be offended.

At the other end are places like DemocraticUnderground that ban people for even slight deviations from the viewpoints of the moderators.

In the middle are places that enforce time/place/manner restrictions of various harshness.

This board tends to mostly crack down on people acting in ways that reflect badly on the board (typically anti LEO or anti government rants) but this depends heavily on which mod is on duty. Some mods here are cool about nearly anything short of vulgarity while others are itching to unholster the banhammer at the slightest hint of hostility to no-knock warrants or SWAT.

I've been a member on various car boards now for about 8 years or so with no problems.

I've been banned for trolling DU a big bunch of times and still have various accounts there that stir up trouble with labor unions, race issues, gay rights, etc. And of course guns too. This is an especially rewarding time to troll there. And of course their eagerness to ban everyone helps to drive out anyone who isn't either a) a dedicated troll b) a complete retard. The mods on that board deserve a conservatism MVP award for their short-sightedness.

I've been banned here once or twice over the past 5 years, mostly during my "overthrow the government" phase.
 
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p/faq-comments.html

FAQ: Comments & Moderation

Q: What is the Huffington Post's Comment Policy?

Huffington Post pre-moderates comments on our blog posts and post-moderates comments on news stories. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only delete those comments that include the following transgressions:

• are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language
• include ad hominem attacks including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise
• contain racist, sexist, homophobic and other slurs
• are solicitations and/or advertising for personal blogs and websites
• thread spamming (you've posted this same comment elsewhere on the site
• are posted with the explicit intention of provoking other commenters or the staff at Huffington Post.

(boldface mine)

Well now I'm just going to have to see how well I can do over there... :D
 
That list gets funnier every time I read it. Don't you believe them, dude. What is interesting is how they throw the rules out the window for the anti-rights posters, especially on the occasional non-Brady anti gun blogs over there. You absolutely would not believe some of those people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top