QOD
How do you feel about banning people? What crosses the line?
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- gary steelman on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Stewball on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Joe Connor on BREAKING: Spotlight Delaware Covers House NDA Story
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- gary steelman on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on BREAKING: Spotlight Delaware Covers House NDA Story
- gary steelman on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- The MoMo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Bill DM on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- The MoMo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Paula on DL Open Thread: Thursday, November 14, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Joe Connor on BREAKING: Spotlight Delaware Covers House NDA Story
- Bill DM on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Joe Connor on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Grant Brunner on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Wayne S Whirld on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- Al Catraz on BREAKING: Spotlight Delaware Covers House NDA Story
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
- El Somnambulo on Matt Meyer Calls For Primaries To Determine Successors To Sarah McBride And Kyle Evans Gay
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
Against it on principal. I’ve never banned anyone. I moderate the guy named “Bubba” if only because he’s a pain in the ass.
Banning just isn’t cool unless actual, physical threats are made against someone.
Agreed. If people ever commented on M-BA (hehe), no one ever be banned short of actual threats on me or another commenter.
Case in point, another blogger, mynym commented extensively on my posts about intelligent design, often repeating the same lame argument that scientists were working only on imagination. Even though I responded with many quotes that showed this wasn’t the case, he continued his imagination argument.
I did not ban him, despite the irrationality and constant repetition of this argument, because it was important to me that all voices be heard on the subject.
Banning a commenter is wrong. Period.
I agree; he shouldn’t be banned, just mocked and ridiculed! 😛
Exactly!
If it’s gotten to that point, then that’s the answer. It’s possible that mocking his arguments might spark some thought.
I wouldn’t agree with Mr M that banning a commenter is wrong, period, because a blog is still private property. You are, in effect, inviting people into your house, and if someone pees on the rug, you have a perfect right to ask him to leave.
That said, in a forum that aspires to open political debate, it’s pretty much of a bad idea, unless the commenter is so disruptive that he prevents other people from having a discussion. Assuming that you are referring to Mike W here, I’d say that he not only hasn’t crossed that line, but that he’s come nowhere close to it. He states his points forcefully, vigorously and persistantly, but those are the kind of commenters I want, and I’d think you would want as well.
I did succeed in getting myself banned by the Mahablog — twice! 🙂
I got some quikcrete u can suck on
how about stealing someone’s name like he did to me? 🙂
“…unless the commenter is so disruptive that he prevents other people from having a discussion”
And that’s my point. I have no problem with debate, but Mike was not about debate. He was turning DL into a gun blog. That said… he will be welcomed back.
I’ve not banned anyone but I have binned two types of comments from my blog: advertising and one other one that was racist and threatened violence.
Will the rules for commenters here ever be the same for the bloggers?
So he was banned? That’s not cool. You guys fed him as much as he fed you. If he really bugged you, just stop “feeding” him.
is there a list of rules around for posting comments on the site? I looked but didn’t see anything.
No, he was not banned. He was given a time out for a day. He can comment tomorrow.
There really are no rules posted (and we should remedy that), but we just ask for people to be respectful and civil, and no threats of violence, no outing, no real life stalking, no spam, you know, standard blog fare.
Now, in political debate, it is easy for things to not be respectful and civil. Indeed, I am sure all of us have not been respectful and civil at some point. But there is a line, and I grant you it is subjective.
Could someone point me to the offending comment that was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak?
And he needed a time out. Really guys, put yourselves in our shoes… This is NOT a gun blog. Mike was disruptive. I asked him time and time again to show me he wasn’t a one trick pony. Who was Mike’s VP choice for Obama or McCain? What did Mike think about Markell or Carney? This is my point: All guns all the time. Geez,I got tired of coming to DL because it was all Mike all the time. The number of posts was, and is, my problem.
Mike M, it wasn’t one comment – and that’s the point.
The best reason to ban Mike W is on editorial grounds, not behavioral. Very few of his posts actually crossed any line, but it is a cumulative thing. Editors don’t want to spend all their energy responding to single-issue commenters, and readers don’t want to read it.
The real answer is a rating system that will let us troll-rate him to oblivion. His good posts would stay visible, while the tiresome ones would sink to the bottom. But that is probably beyond the scope of DL at this point.
I only wish I had a Mike W. on my site. Whatever keeps people talking, no matter how obnoxious, always gets me going.
The one comment that pissed me off was his telling another commenter to leave the site. But Pandora is right, it is really a cumulative thing, and not one comment here or there.
We can dream, Anon. And, yes, that’s the answer. My concern was mainly for our regular readers. I am a saint, after all! 😉
Mike M, take him, and then talk to me in a month.
Anon—
If DL used a Scoop platform, like Daily Kos, then ratings are possible. WordPress does not have such functions, and we can only delete, spam, edit or moderate comments, not rate them.
No, I do want Mike to stay here, and become a passionate voice for the opposition on a host of issues, like Steve or RSmitty or hell, even Dave Anderson or Dave Burris.
I wanted to post this here as well. I wanted to be sure that you saw it.
FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!!!
You are all about free speech as long as you agree with it. Remember, Donfeces, “how come we allow people to have opinions that we know are wrong?”
You guys just sold your souls and, once again, exposed yourselves for the frauds you truly are. With the utterly ridiculous, over-the-top shit you bottom-feeders post on this blog, for you to ban someone is incomprehensible to me. And, it’s not as though you only write/comment here. If that were the case you might be able to justify it. However, many of you assholes comment all over the place. If you were to be banned anywhere else, you fucking bitches would be screaming bloody fucking murder!
Jason, am I mistaken or didn’t you get banned from the Cube a ways back and you threw a fucking hissy fit?
No need to reply. I know the answer.
You guys keep it so real!
Pandora, would Mike have been banned if he was flooding the strands with pro-Obama, anti-Bush comments? Fuck no! And you fucking know it!
Mike was banned, not for flooding the comments, but because you self-aggrandizing hypocrites didn’t agree with what he was writing. Period.
It is an insult to compare Mike W. to Steve, Smitty, Dave A. or Dave B.. And that was your point. Humor, or the ability to laugh at yourself, goes a long way. For while I don’t always agree with these guys… I love them and they make me smile.
A. Bundy, Wrong!
The real answer is a rating system that will let us troll-rate him to oblivion.
And if you’ve seen this work over at dKos or MyDD, that stops none of the complaints about over censoring. As Pandora said, mike is a one-trick pony and you should go back and re-look at this morning’s posts (before time out) all of them came to a screeching halt while mike did his gun dance in them even though gun dancing was quite off-topic. At some point it just hindered the usual ebb and flow here and you can’t let it go on forever.
I vote no on the banning. I even vote no on the “time out”. It’s not like this is always a place of civility all of the time. 🙂 IF, though, there are physical threats, etc. and/or SPAM, that’s different. But it is your blog.
Banning is a tough issue for me. I started my blog close to 2 years ago. Within the first month, I attracted the Troll from Hell. This person not only took over every thread of every post, it (I don’t know if it is a man or woman) twisted my arguments and ran the conversation off the track onto some of the dumbest tangents ever. On top of this, I never could make this person get back on the topic or stop misrepresenting my arguments. I don’t mind people disagreeing with my arguments, but, for crying out loud, supporting people’s right to protest doesn’t mean I support death threats.
My solution: I warned this troll repeatedly to stop mischaracterizing my arguments and just make its own arguments. When the troll wouldn’t do this, I started deleting comments because I don’t think Blogger has a ban function. Said troll then gravitated to Dana’s site to torture us for another 4 mos. before self-destructing.
After all that, I’ve come to sort of regret deleting the comments just because I really do think lively debate is better than no debate at all. But Pandora is right: it is ridiculously annoying to constantly deal with a bad troll, a one-trick pony. I tried to hint to Mike W. that this site is far better because of the variety of topics and that he should participate in those. For whatever reason, he wants to discuss guns, which is appropriate for some threads but not all threads.
I’ve been banned from 2 different sites (one twice!) and the feeling was humiliating, particularly since I had tried to be polite and thoughtful in my comments. But there are sites which just don’t tolerate dissent. This isn’t one of those.
I’m not sure under what circumstances banning is appropriate, but I can definitely understand why you would be considering it in this case. I liked Mike W.’s arguments, but I didn’t need to see them on every thread.
Sorry this is so long. :X
Thanks for a thoughtful response to the conundrum we faced Sharon. And to be clear, Mike W is not banned. He is welcome back tomorrow, and we hope he broadens his horizons.
Thanks, Sharon!
“we hope he broadens his horizons.”
The sheer hypocrisy of this statement is laughable.
Apparently, you couldn’t tolerate his point of view.
Who needs to be broadened?
BTW…..tickety-tock, tickety-tock…
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Aug15.html
Look kids like Mike W get off the subject and into a loop if they can’t add to the conversation then kick their asses off.
As For Bundy if you are so upset with the way things are run here go to another blog that puts up with Trolls like yourself.
Hmmmm….so much for the BIG TENT party!
Sharon: The trollette you mentioned is a woman. 🙂
And where’d you get banned? Even Pandagon hasn’t banned me yet, despite their rather low opinions of me.
For the record, and for those who are serious about welcoming mike w. back tomorrow, I’d like you to visit his blog at the post below and see how he has handled the issue.
One quote for those who won’t make the trip:
Apparently asking JadeGold to “Backup what you say or leave” is against DE Liberal rules. That said I have to hand it to them for not banning me. As we know many such sites (on both left & right) will do when folks engage in disagreements. If there’s one thing I’ve been pleasantly surprised by on Delaware Liberal it’s that they have not banned commenters who disagree with them.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-just-got-warned.html
Like Sharon, as a libertarian who hangs out here in a liberal blog, I have attempted several times to give mike hints for living and thriving here.
If he’s actually reading this, here’s another one.
When Truth Teller wrote the vulgar comment that you were probably just home sitting there rubbing a gun like your penis in the bathroom with the door locked, you responded with the basic “How could you be so vulgar as to respond to my reasoned arguments with ad hominem attacks?” You do that fairly consistently.
The proper DL response to this sort of thing (back me up here DBB) would run along the lines of:
splat, splat. ahhh. got to find a towel and relube the action of this baby. TT, you can look through the keyhole anytime baby.
You want to hang out here, mike, the first rule is to rarely if ever admit that somebody got to you.
I hope you’ll come back tomorrow.
Let’s be honest here. There are ad hominem attacks, and there are ad hominem attacks at Delaware Liberal. And it is hard sometimes to tell the difference. I think a camaraderie has developed among all long time participants in the DE blogosphere, where we call each other the worst names in the book that are commonly exchanged among liberals and conservatives, but because DE is a small state, an even smaller political world, and an even smaller blogosphere, you can’t piss too many people off too long.
For literally, Donviti lives just down the street from me, and if I insult him too bad, he will come and kill me. 😉 So we insult each other, but we come back to argue some more.
Yes, I think that is true.
And there are other times when we are serious about the insults. For example, the Matt Head / Delawonk incident. We are serious when we call him a paid shill, for he is. We are not joking.
You know what I think Mike’s problem is, he thinks he will change our minds if he just argues more and louder.
Mike, you will never, ever change our minds. But you argue like you think you can. He becomes invested in the argument, hence the frequency of the comments. The comments of ridicule in response to Mike are, like TT’s , while vulgar on their face, are an attempt to say “Mike, you made your point. We disagree. Now shut up now.”
This is Delaware Liberal. Mike is not going to change our minds about guns. Sorry, it ain’t happening. But he can argue his point, and then stop when his point is made.
Thanks to Steve Newton I will now forever think of Truth Teller as Herbert from Family Guy. Which I guess makes Mike w. like Chris Griffin (with a gun fetish)?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Herbert – if you’re not a regular Family Guy viewer like myself)
I watch every night on Adult Swim.
The Delawaredem wrote:
Is that not a confession of closed-mindedness?
For me, I’d like to see some honesty from those who advocate gun control. The Second Amendment clearly states that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet the supporters of gun control laws are seeking, very specifically, to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. I do not object to you advocacy of such, but I do wish that you’d admit that such is your goal.
Do you believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed?
Dana…
Define “arms?”
Arms is a word that encompasses more than guns and rifles. It is defined as a weapon. And a weapon can be a whole host of things. Nuclear bombs are weapons. Grenades are weapons. A Neutron Bomb is a weapon.
Now, are you saying that you have a right to possess these weapons just because the Second Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Of course not. But isn’t saying that you can’t personally own a nuclear weapon an infringement of the Second Amendment according to you? Yes.
When the founders wrote that Amendment, the arms they invisioned were muskets and rifles. They had no idea about the technological advances of what was to come. AK47, handguns, automatic weapons, cop-killing bullets, etc., etc.
Put it simply, the government has a right to regulate the type of arms you can own. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to bear any arms you want.
Further, criminals and those with mental deficiencies or disease should not have a right to bear arms either.
And no, I do not think the second amendment should be repealed, so long as the right to bear arms is regulated with background checks and on types of weapons as I describe.
Indeed, with evil conservatives killing Democrats now, I think I have to buy one.
Dana,
I was banned twice (!) from Echidne of the Snakes–the polite blogger! Basically, one of her regular commenters blew an aneurism because I told another commenter that I felt bad for their situation but I didn’t have the same experiences (and that is exactly what I said). That was the person who labeled me a “gold-plated bitch on wheels,” which I turned into my blog name. Echidne sent me an e-mail telling me it was “upsetting” to some of her regular commenters that I was there, so she was giving me the boot. I still enjoy laughing at many of the posts and the comments there, but it is obviously an echo chamber. No divergent viewpoints need apply. If someone does show up with a different POV, they are ushered out in less than a month.
The other place I was banned (not sure it is still in effect) was at Brothers Judd blog because I disagreed with his view of illegal immigration. I stated why I thought we should enforce the laws we have or change them to ones we were willing to enforce. For that, I was labelled a racist. When I explained to him that my viewpoint had nothing to do with race, he continued to call me a racist and then gave me what here has been called a “time-out.” I didn’t want to put up with that and have never left another comment. While I still enjoy reading that blog, I’ve noticed that the comments are nearly non-existent there.
The point, of course, is that if you want lively discussion, you have to allow divergent viewpoints, even if they piss you off. Some sites seem better equipped for that than others, which is why some sites are so quick to ban people.
From my observations, this site does a good job of allowing free expression and an exchange of ideas. Someone upthread said it best that Mike behaved as though if he argued loudly enough, he would persuade anyone here to agree with him. My contention is that thoughtful debate–not frequency of debate–changes hearts and minds. We have a few liberal friends (Aphrael comes to mind) who have actually changed my mind about a couple of issues.
I am flexible about some issues, others I am not. I don’t profess to know all things, and will frequently ask questions on this and other blogs.
One of the best comments we can post on a blog is: Could you explain what you meant by…?”
I love snarky humor as well.
By the way, I love how Dane refers to me as “The Delaware Dem.” Hehehehe. I feel like I must now close every comment like this:
The Delaware Dem Hath Spoketh.
End Communication.
DD – As far as the courts go the concept of “arms” is almost, if not totally, a decided issue. NO ONE is arguing that nukes, grenades, RPG’s etc. are protected arms. (some may believe it, but it’s not being argued by anyone as a matter of policy)
Throughout most of history (and certainly 2A jurisprudence) “arms” have been defined as the basic handheld weapons of the individual soldier. That would certainly include handguns, since they were prevalent throughout all of US history and are currently issued to all US troops.
There was actually a “militia Act” I believe in 1789 that required the “unorganized militia” (I.E. citizens) to have a minimum armament that they could bring with them that consisted of a rifle/musket, a pistol(for officers and those on horseback) wadding, powder, and a certain amount of ammunition.
The specifics of this can be found in the prelude to Heller, which was Parker vs. D.C. where it was discussed in length.
There’s far too much to discuss all at once, so I’ll just start with a few things.
1st off, if you’re going to ban people you should have some sort of criteria for what are “ban worthy offenses.” – I didn’t come close to anything that should have gotten me banned by the way. I was, and will continue to be, civil with everyone here. That’s just the way I am.
“Mike was banned, not for flooding the comments, but because you self-aggrandizing “hypocrites didn’t agree with what he was writing. Period”
A. Bundy – I agree with this part of what you said, however their is something I must disagree with. I am personally against muzzling ANY comments on my blog other than advertising and actual threats of violence against me, my family, or others. However, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. This is a private blog, and they can ban/muzzle whomever they see fit for whatever reasons they want. It’s not something I’d advise if you want to have open political discussion & discourse, and I personally find the practice of banning those with which you disagree to be repugnant.
That said, I was banned for the exact reason Bundy states. You folks know you wouldn’t have banned someone who’s comments toed the DE liberal party line. You banned me because I disturbed the echo chamber and was persistent in asking that you be civil and address arguments (you know, actually engage in reasoned debate..)
DD said in his “warning” e-mail to me,
“We do allow all who disagree with us to comment here so long as their behavior remains respectful and civil.”
Of course I was subsequently given a “timeout” by Jason – Yet again he makes a direct attack on my age, something he and others have done since I got here.
I’m all for taking jabs at one another in humor and jest. I’ve however been treated with rampant disrespect and certain contributors who have responded with nothing other than attacks and nothing more substantive than “you’re wrong, shut up.”
Look. If you think I’m wrong on something fine, disagree with me, but do so in a civil manner. If you want to have a debate we’ll debate, but if you want to act like children and offer no substance or counterarguments don’t be surprised when I treat you with a bit less tact, like you’re children who must be “educated.” I remained respectful, but yes I did talk to some of you like you had no capacity for rational thought. (again, had you attempted to actually discuss my arguments I would have thought more highly of you.)
If you go to my blog or Robb Allen’s you’ll see I responded to Don Viti and others with civil, reasoned responses. I tore apart his arguments with persistent facts & logic and didn’t let him off the hook. If you are going to respond with attacks rather than address my argument on it’s merits, i’m going to ridicule that approach. If you’re going to respond with an unsubstantiated “you’re wrong” I’m going to demand that you “back up what you say.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact it’s required if you actually want to have open debate.
This is something Steve said I was doing “talking to them like I was a lecturer.” Given the quality of discourse I was getting, absolute refusal to address arguments with substance I decided to be a bit more blunt & persistent (dumb it down for you, so to speak) That said, not once did I stoop to the level of personal insults that were levied at me.
DD said to me in his “warning” e-mail.
“We do allow all who disagree with us to comment here so long as their behavior remains respectful and civil.”
I”m going to diverge from my usual and be blunt and un PC here for a moment. DD, going back to what A. Bundy said, your above comment is complete bullshit. You clearly don’t muzzle people who are uncivil and disrespectful. If you did there are a host of people who would have been canned for their comments. For my own personal reasons, I’ve intentionally stayed “above the fray” despite disrespect shown to me by several commentors and DL contributors. I was in no way, shape or form “uncivil” to the point of being banned, warned, or otherwise.
One thing I have noticed is this. Those who agree with and toe the DE Liberal party line can be as uncivil and disrespectful as they like with no repurcussions whatsoever.
I tell someone they need to refrain from commenting if they cannot do so without backing up their claims and without personal attacks and I get muzzled for it. TT was doing little more than throwing personal attacks my way. I told him to quit commenting if he could not do so without attacking me. I have every right to make such a request.
As far as JadeGold – He was making claims that were 100% irrefutably FALSE, then attacking me when I refuted his BS. I respectfully told him to “backup what you say or leave.” I stand by that comment.
Those who agree with and toe the DE Liberal party line can be as uncivil and disrespectful as they like with no repurcussions whatsoever.
Sorry mike but no sale there; myself, rsmitty (aka lickspittle), and FSP have all been as uncivil and disrespectful as we like in attacking the party line and have never had it intimated to us in any way that we should leave.
In way I will probably never be able to make clear to you, when i am attacking dv or jason personally (or vice versa) it has always been about the party line and not really at all about each other….
But that’s a really difficult and subjective concept to explain, I admit….
I understand that concept and what you are saying about how some of you conduct business here.
That said, it was DD in his “warning” who said that remaining “civil and respectful” was a requirement for commenting here. If you’re going to temp ban me you can’t really claim lack of civility or respect on my part as even partial justification for the ban unless you’re going to apply that standard to the other commentors here with which you do agree.
“Mike was not about debate. ”
Sorry Pandora. I tried, you would not address the substance of my arguments. That’s not my fault.
“I asked him time and time again to show me he wasn’t a one trick pony. ”
You can deny it all you want Pandora, but I posted quite a few comments that had nothing whatsoever to do with guns. In fact, when you asked me in one thread, I posted a comment outlining my positions on a whole host of issues.
CassandraM said,
“The immaturity was evident in the vast majority of his posts — he rarely, if ever, read or addressed what you said.”
That’s incredible Casssandra. I attempted to refute, without insults, almost every argument that came my way.
“yet the supporters of gun control laws are seeking, very specifically, to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. I do not object to you advocacy of such, but I do wish that you’d admit that such is your goal.”
Dana – They will not even concede that their positions are “anti-2A” nor that the liberal politicians they support are “anti-2A” despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. As DBB put it “I’m not anti-gun just pro-law.” Up is down, left is right, and there’s virtually no gun law that actually constitutes an “infringement.” Of course, applying such an attitude/policy to other rights in the BOR would be unthinkable to most anti-gun liberals.
If Mike W’s posts are too focused on gun issues for you then why don’t you add a gun issue forum. Then if he posts somewhere you consider inappropriate just move his post so we will know where to find it.
Max – I would not expect nor want them to do so. This is not a gun blog.
“Case in point, another blogger, mynym commented extensively….
Even though I responded with many quotes that showed this wasn’t the case, he continued his imagination argument.”
It seems more likely that you had nothing to say because imagining things about the past, no matter how “natural,” is still just imagining things. There’s simply no way around the fact that imaginary events in the past are not the equivalent of actual science. Actual science would look more like encoding the theory of natural selection in the language of mathematics, predicting an adaptation and verifying it empirically. In this way a knowledge of its limitations might be known. Given the powers imagined of natural selection based on pseudo-science I might imagine that your biological brain events can be reduced to natural selection operating on the reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures. But again, that is merely imagining things.