Time Out
Program Note: I’ve given Mike a time out. Feel free to use this thread to talk about anything you’d like provided it isn’t about how evil liberals are trying to take away your rights.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Evil conservatives are trying to take away my rights! (to privacy)
BTW, saw a Mike Miller add on a bus yesterday. That puts the ads I have personally seen at Northington 2, Miller 1, KHN 0.
But that’s OK, KHN will magically beat Castle without spending or raising any money whatsoever. She probably has a genie-filled lamp in her garage, so she’s not sweating this one.
I always thought Mike was entertaining.
Kind of like that crazy uncle who is convinced fluoridation is a commie plot or the guy at work who believes his cat is transmitting messages from beyond the universe.
Besides, we libs are trying to take away his rights. And sully his precious bodily fluids.
Well, this is a business (sorta) and I made a business decision that my faithfull customers could use a break.
It’s not so much what Mike says (okay, it is what he says as well! 😉 ) as it is the number of comments he posts. He clogs posts and hijacks threads. If he would just slow down with the submit button…
Yeah, I don’t mind him. He just has an issue with accepting evidence contrary to his beliefs, all too common amongst his ilk.
Opinion is one thing, but to take a ‘logical’ leap saying that a ban on handguns is tantamount to the complete eradication of the 2A is just plain silly, and a serious indication of what’s wrong with debating dead-enders.
Feh. Nice job, silencing someone who you didn’t agree with so stridently, that you rarely even attempted to answer him with anything other than ridicule.
Vive le DE Lib!!
You run your blog how you see fit and I’ll run mine.
Maybe Mike will use this time to start his own blog where he can bore people to death with his ad naseum complaints about how bad liberals like me want to take his guns away.
I just might be doing him a favor.
Joe, he was answered, with both substance and ridicule. He is being given a time out because he was being uncivil with a number of commenters, not including the DL contributors. Further, he would hijack threads with the ongoing arguments that were unrelated to the threads themselves.
He is not banned. He will be back.
Maybe Mike will use this time to start his own blog where he can bore people to death with his ad naseum complaints about how bad liberals like me want to take his guns away.
Check that. I recall now that he has his own blog.
Nevermind.
He was answered without civility by a number of commenters, including Jason and DBB. Are you going to give them a time out?
I’m guessing no.
And, thank you, Jason, I will run my blog as I like. That involves never silencing anyone, no matter how much I disagree with them.
for the record, it was me that defended his right to comment.
as vulgar as I am on this site, I don’t see why others should be banned when I sort of get a pass.
Keep family and female body parts out of the arguments and you are usually fine in my case. As well as threats. Not boxing threats though…just threats
Joe,
General lack of civility is a norm here, and by that standard mike was a hell of a lot more civil than Truth Teller (to name just one).
And I’d note, guys, that one can only hijack a thread when what he says is either interesting or provocative enough to get you to respond. You all know that “don’t feed the trolls” works; you don’t want the thread hijacked, don’t answer.
Yes, I’ll admit I sometimes find mike annoying (often when he is presenting arguments I mostly agree with in a way that eliminates the possibility of discussion), but there are a lot more annoying people here–myself included.
Truth be told (but not to massage my penis or anything, TT), what mostly got to you folks is that mike wants to lecture and has (or at least has demonstrated) no sense of humor.
But while it is your blog and you’re free to run it the way you want, I’m with Joe: I never have and cannot see a situation in which I will ban a commenter. I did not ban the two guys with their oh-so-cute U-boat prints who chose to call my daughter stupid, even though I did exercise my right to call them “fucking idiots.”
Steve,
That’s what happens when a blog values toeing the party line over freedom of discourse. I guess we all need to make sure we agree implicitly with the DE Lib agenda or at least be funny, otherwise we’ll be banished.
Speaking of timeouts, where’s ‘Geek? Please tell me he didn’t jump ship to that delaskunk(wonk) blog.
Geek is still on vacation. Damn elitist.
How in the hell can he afford that? He’s obviously more Republiberalgeek than not. Bastard is supposed to distribute his wealth, not spend it on himself. Selfish prick.
That’s envy-fueled anger, btw. 😛
Joe
I generally go for being funny (one of my funniest strategies is to actually read the stories they link to, and then quote them back; it generally stops conversation).
But while I do disagree with banning somebody (and share pretty much the same standards as dv expressed above; two peas in a vulgar pod, we), I have gone on record several times asking mike to quit acting like this was a lecture hall and everybody else represented his dim-witted students. And if you’ll note, one of his last comments before jason stuck the ball-gag in his mouth was to the effect of, “Gee, you’re right, I have been doing that, haven’t I?”
Steve….he is not banned. He will have his posting privileges returned tomorrow.
This is just a time out. And it is good to hear he said that.
Look, Mike is a smart person, and I would like him to become a commenter like you and RSmitty. You two disagree with us vehemently on a host of issues, but we can act civilly with each other and we can respect each other.
I just want to know what this site does with their ball gags when they’re not using it to ban people.
Twisted pervs. No wonder DV likes it here.
Actually, it is DV who gave us the ball gags. He is a freak.
😉
I guess we all need to make sure we agree implicitly with the DE Lib agenda or at least be funny, otherwise we’ll be banished
still trying to figure out how you managed to sneak in
Yeah, tough shit. If I was commenting here and being responded to with little more than ridicule and ad hominem attacks, I’d push the envelope here. I have been reding the comments here on a more than daily basis, and I’ve heard few that actually answered Mike W.s comments, whether they were stupid or well-reasoned.
It took less than a week before people here were responding with knocks on his age, rather than his arguments. Then, as has been said before, others have been just as petulant and childish against Mike.
Where’s their ban? I’ll tell you now that it’s not going to happen because those attacking Mike were partyliners and no matter how infantile their attacks were, at least they showed their loyalty to the agenda here.
And trust me, I have no problems a bout a blog having an agenda. That’s why we’re writing. I just have a problem with the agenda being more important than free discourse.
It took less than a week before people here were responding with knocks on his age, rather than his arguments.
I’ll take credit for that too.
I personally believe he is politakid haunting us
Just tell DV he is a flaming asshole already. I do that often and the jackass buys me coffee for it.
Maybe it’s all in the delivery. Hmm…
now don’t go getting all worked up into a lather joe 🙂
Such BS Joe. I don’t think you even buy that.
The guy adds nothing. He turns everythread into a boring ass complaint.
“I personally believe he is politakid haunting us”
Again, another ad hominem attack ignoring what he says because of the source. Thanks for proving my point, DD.
Jason, what I’m saying is not even close to BS. I think that Mike W was wrong far more often than not, but his arguments merited a serious response, not ridicule and a banning. Maybe if someone here had tried that, he may have been turned around.
I guess that’s the sad outcome of ridiculing those who think different from you. Nothing changes because no one tried to change it. So much for progress.
I was one of those who called Mike W a troll, because that was what he was.
However, my issue with him was his lack of logic and, now, his admitted lack of compromise.
Ban? Your site, do as you wish. But what’s next, banning Carney cronies?
Let’s hope not. Delawonk responding to Carney posts is the most entertaining stuff all month.
Steve….he is not banned. He will have his posting privileges returned tomorrow.
So he is banned but only for today.
Thank you Jason. The break is refreshing. He’s probably going to blitz this place tomorrow.
He received serious reponses!
Christ! What are you to do when someone refuses to recognize evidence or stated positions based on fact?
I’ll tell you what though, he’s pretty good at deflecting and focusing the argument on a different position when he’s confronted with proof otherwise.
By not letting me post here, you’ve taken my liberty and freedom away. Next you’re coming for my guns. I’ll tell you this, Never, never, never.
It was the shear number of posts!!!! This is NOT a gun blog, but anyone would be forgiven for thinking so. All roads lead to the 2nd Amendment with Mike.
And I did start out trying to engage him in debate… didn’t work since according to Mike I have a reading comprehensive problem.
Oops, maybe Mike was right… comprehension!
The more and more I think about the ban, the more I think it was the wrong thing to do. Mike W is an ass and very annoying, but like all kids he would have gotten bored and moved on. You have set a bad precident and have loaded his gun with ammo, so to speak.
duffy,
So he is banned but only for today
it is not a ban, it is a restriction
🙂
agree with nemski, we have seen what happens when you just post something they don’t like, it opens up the flood gates to being hounded even worse now.
I just went into the thread before this one – Peace -and counted 15 comments from Mike W. out of 42 total. No matter what he said, that’s overkill and annoying as heck.
DBB,
That may be because stifling free speech is a worse offense than being annoying.
June,
See just above.
I’m not even sure how:
I personally believe he is politakid haunting us
is ad hominem Joe. Maybe it wasn’t funny, but I think your use of ad-hominem is a little off.
Joe,
MR. DBB to you buddy!
DBB,
That may be because stifling free speech is a worse offense than being annoying.
I was the one that said we shouldn’t ban him at all behind the scenes.
I was going for just ignoring him, but then he started poking the wrong people b/c we were ignoring him.
If I am going to dish it out I have to be able to take it.
if I really don’t like it, well, I will challenge you to a duel (sp?)
DBB,
No, that is literally ad hominem, which means attacking the presenter rather than the point as a way of refuting the argument. Sorry, but that’s the definition.
Also, I believe that you wouldn’t be one to stifle someone else’s words without an argument. If I was attacking you, I’d be using more profanity.
What is it called if it’s done after refuting their argument?
Actually, you’ve managed to turn this thread into the worst ad hominem one yet. I was — and am — unaware of Mr W’s age, but you’ve both told us that you think he’s young, and then gave him a one-day ban that you called a “time out,” like you’d treat an eight-year old.
You aren’t answering his arguments, but trying to declare him to be too immature for anyone to even pay attention to him.
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!
The immaturity was evident in the vast majority of his posts — he rarely, if ever, read or addressed what you said and ran right off to wherever he wanted to hijack the thread to. After one circular conversation on oil drilling, I pretty much ignored him and the threads he was in until a few nights ago where I did blow up at him. AND I wonder how long some of you actually read him — mike has been here for awhile, and while I think that some really did try to answer his arguments at some point you know that you simply are not being heard. That is the time to turn him and the thread loose.
However, not feeding the trolls is exactly right, and Mike was very much here because he could get so much attention. And letting one or a few people be a persistent distraction and annoyance turns this blog into a Usenet site and that is no longer a good thing. Blog software comes with user controls for a reason, you know? And while Mike is restricted from participating here for the time being, I did note that not one of the critics here with their own blogs have made a point to invite Mike to come join their own spaces.
Oooh… Mike Matthews wants him. Go on, Mike W., hop on over to Down With Absolutes.
Bundy, your outrage would be more entertaining if you knew what the fuck you were talking about.
First, Mike W is not banned.
Second, as you conservatives love to tell us, your right to free speech is protected from intrusion from the government. As far as I can tell, Delaware Liberal is not a government entity. It is a privately owned blog, and we can delete any comment we wish whenever we wish. We don’t do that except for spammers.
Here, we are not deleting comments, we are just revoking his right to comment on our blog for a day. It is a loss of privilege. Not a loss of a right.
Cassandra,
I remember back in 2006 when kavips was just a commenter her and on other blogs, and it was said that s/he was nothing more than a Dennis Spivak shill. Imagine what we would have lost if he was banned and didn’t start blogging on her/his own.
As to inviting Mike to post on other blogs, that argument doesn’t have much merit. Having a blog is an open invitation to commenters, and Mike has commented on mine since the bannination.
However, if it needs to be said, Mike W., you’re welcome to comment on my blog anytime, and with that comes the danger of argument, ridicule, and crushing sarcasm that all of my commenters are prone to.
Don’t threaten me or other commenters, and don’t post kiddie porn or other illegal materials, and you won’t be in risk of bannination.
Sigh. I am not sure why the most obvious point of this has escaped so many obviously intelligent people.
Mike was not banned. He will be able to comment tomorrow.
Some of you disagree with this action, and you have made your views heard.
Jeez, DD. Many people have responded to that: me, Mike Matthews, and Duffy to name three.
A temp ban is still a ban.
The free speech argument cracks me up.
Joe –
mike had no “arguments” he had one point to make which he made over and over and over and over and over again to the exclusion of some other more diverse points.
When people take a quick look from thier computer at work and see five consecutive Mike comments they have come to know that he is not saying anything that they haven’t heard.
He is a guest here and I told him to leave for a bit. When he comes back, if decides to come back, he is welcome to comment. But he is not welcome to turn every fucking thread into a long winded complaint that liberals are trying to take away his guns.
Liberals are doing nothing of the sort. It is boring to keep hearing something that is so patently untrue.
I disagree. A temp ban is not a ban. A ban implies permanence. This is a restriction for 24 hours. Therefore not permanent.
And let’s not forget that A. Bundy posed as a Hillary supporter. Fine.
AGAIN, it was the number of Mike’s posts. He was excessive.
All are welcome at my site. Post is on top declaring a “ban-free zone.”
Joe, I wasn’t here in 2006, so I don’t know about kavips behavior then. You would say, though, that kavips replicated mike w’s behavior by hijacking darn near every thread commented on to talk about Spivak? It would surprise me if you said yes, but mike’s posts became live spam to me. There were whole threads here that I didn’t even read because that single gun note added nothing to this site.
And, as Jason notes, we are all guests here — the door is, of course, open, but there are few blogs without some threshold for behavior. If your (or other critics’s) threshold allows thread hijacking to discuss how liberals want to take away your guns, then have at it. But in the meantime, mike has been told that his behavior is not appropriate in this house — but all of you guys are free to tell him that behavior is perfectly fine in your houses.
A “time out”????
Sweet Jesus, you can’t even act like a man.
The great part is that it is not like he is banned… he is the big topic of discussion!
So in the absence of the nuisance blogger’s distractions let’s focus on nothing else but discussing him! this thread and the one he ruined earlier are most of the posts today!
Well I see this as quite an extension of mercy on DL’s behalf–Less is more–think how anxiously we’ll read his posts now we have been without…instead of the pass I currently do because of the expected unrelated sermon tied into any random post.
I mean I wait with baited breath for Geek to begin posting again….maybe DL should extend greater mercy and respite to Mr. Mike and his missives.
“You aren’t answering his arguments, but trying to declare him to be too immature for anyone to even pay attention to him.”
Dana, this started almost as soon as I came to this site, and the title of this thread is a perfect example. If you folks want to respond to me do so, but do so with substance. If you do so with personal attacks I will continue to call you out on it and push you to reply with substance.
“Feh. Nice job, silencing someone who you didn’t agree with so stridently, that you rarely even attempted to answer him with anything other than ridicule.”
Exactly Joe. They silenced me because the disagreed with me, couldn’t address the merits of my arguments, and got pissy when I asked them to backup their claims. (Pandora & Cassandra seemed particularly perturbed by my persistence in not letting them off so easily. It was actually kinda funny) I somewhat expect DBB & Jason to act a certain way, because they’re like that with everyone. And DD you said,
“He is being given a time out because he was being uncivil with a number of commenters, not including the DL contributors. ”
I was being uncivil & disrespectful? You have got to be kidding me. You could have at least given a real reason for giving me a warning and timeout (how childish btw)
Also, a ban for a day is still a ban. Both the intent and result of it are to prevent me from posting here. Just like a ban on handguns is still a ban. Just because other weapons are allowed doesn’t mean it’s any less of a ban. The intent & result are to prohibit ownership.
Jason, you said,
“Liberals are doing nothing of the sort. It is boring to keep hearing something that is so patently untrue.”
Dead wrong. I’ve shown you plenty of examples of liberals attacking 2A rights every chance they get. To say that many liberal politicians are not constantly attacking my 2A rights is patently and factually untrue. Oh, and I had plenty of diverse points. The fact that you consistently chose not to address the merits & substance of my argument is on you and you alone.
Dana said,
“You aren’t answering his arguments, but trying to declare him to be too immature for anyone to even pay attention to him.”
I agree. As you said, this entire post is yet another ad hominem aimed at my age. I can’t say I’m surprised. As I’ve said before, if they were able to address the merits of my arguments they would do so. Personal jabs back and forth is one thing, but they’ve consistently avoided addressing my actual arguments or backing up their own. The only plausible reason for doing so on such a consistent basis is that they have no substance and cannot logically & factually refute my arguments.
For example, it was Von Cracker who started the gun-related debate in this thread. I didn’t hijack it. Also, there have been plenty of posts directly discussing either me or some gun-related issue. I can hardly be accused of turning something into an “all guns all the time” debate, when the original post by a DL site contributor was about guns.
http://delawareliberal.net//2008/08/14/the-village-idiot-visits-china/#comments
Get over it.
awwww, Jason doesn’t like that I responded to his thread and his immature “timeout.”
Deal with it buddy.
Jason will never get over anything. That’s why he’s a Democrat. Bitterness 24/7.
Grrr…
Yamaha – Not all democrats are bitter, not all Republicans are evil.
And Jason – Considering you banned me and posted two different topics discussing it I don’t see why you’d expect anything other than a response on my part.
Good point. Now then, moving on…
Jason – you turned plenty of threads into “gun threads” on your own without my 1st bringing up the issue. You also had quite a few “gun posts,” so the whole “he turned everything into a gun post” argument that Pandora and others are clinging to holds no water.
“I was going for just ignoring him, but then he started poking the wrong people b/c we were ignoring him.”
DBB – Who were these “wrong people” that I “started poking?”