Every day is a new circus.

[ok doser]

This might be the nugget around the whole matter.

I have been speaking to these "her claims" that were found out. That they were discovered by groups with nefarious agendas is not really at issue for me. Rather I am trying to understand the motive(s) underlying the self-identification claim in the first place, especially when she goes to the length of checking a racial group box in a legal directory. I do not know the factuality of that event, but if it is true, and I assumed it to be so, I am wondering, aloud here, what is reason behind this action? I do think it bears some scrutiny as it seems to be at the root of the brouhaha that has resulted.

The action may very well have been with the best or sentimental intentions, "This one's for you, Grandma." I do not know.

AMR

breaking news:

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Warren (D-Mass.) indicated that her race was "American Indian" in a handwritten registration form filed in 1986 with the Texas State Bar. The revelation is the first known instance of Warren claiming Native American ancestry in an official document or in her own handwriting. https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/02...ens-heritage-controversy-chances-2020-primary

 

[annabenedetti]

Reality these days out-onions The Onion...

MS GOP Rep. Accused Of Punching Wife In The Face For Undressing Too Slowly For Sex

 

[annabenedetti]

I was extremely calm yesterday with my meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, knowing that they would say I was raging, which they always do, along with their partner, the Fake News Media. Well, so many stories about the meeting use the Rage narrative anyway - Fake & Corrupt Press!



​

I AM COMPLETELY CALM shouts Trump, as he runs around the west wing with a soup pot on his head and falls down a flight of stairs with his pants around his ankles

​

 

[annabenedetti]

@JudgeRightly:

I locked it because I wanted Sherman to have a look at it, as it was reported for being flame-bait.

Locking this thread too. Please do not create additional threads to get around a thread lock.
@ annabenedetti You should have sent the moderators a PM before starting a new thread.

How can I reply to you if you lock the thread you posted to me in?

So I'm replying here in a preexisting thread, since I'd rather know in public why my thread would be considered "flame-bait."

I don't run to the mods with PMs, and in fact, when I've received infractions in the past, I was instructed specifically not to PM the mod even though I wouldn't have anyway. So in interest of transparency, would you please explain how my thread was "flame-bait?"

 

[ok doser]

@JudgeRightly:




How can I reply to you if you lock the thread you posted to me in?

So I'm replying here in a preexisting thread, since I'd rather know in public why my thread would be considered "flame-bait."

I don't run to the mods with PMs, and in fact, when I've received infractions in the past, I was instructed specifically not to PM the mod even though I wouldn't have anyway. So in interest of transparency, would you please explain how my thread was "flame-bait?"

deleted

 

[annabenedetti]

i would venture that any thread you start is by default flame-bait, simply by virtue of the fact that you are a troll :idunno:

I would venture you were the reporter...

 

[ok doser]

just call me jimmy olsen

 

[annabenedetti]

More like Eddie Haskell.

 

[ok doser]

i don't think he was a reporter

 

[JudgeRightly]

@JudgeRightly:


How can I reply to you if you lock the thread you posted to me in?

It's called a private message. :think:

So I'm replying here in a preexisting thread, since I'd rather know in public why my thread would be considered "flame-bait."

Did you not see where I said I was waiting for Sherman to look at it?

I locked the thread, rather than deleted it outright, for a reason.

I don't run to the mods with PMs,

Too bad.

and in fact, when I've received infractions in the past,

Here's the thing, though: I didn't give you an infraction.

I simply locked a thread of yours, because I had received a report that it was flame-bait, and wanted to check with Sherman before I did anything.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Sherman.

I was instructed specifically not to PM the mod even though I wouldn't have anyway. So in interest of transparency, would you please explain how my thread was "flame-bait?"

I never said it was.

I thought I had made my actions clear enough when I responded to your second thread. I guess not.

I said I was waiting for Sherman's opinion on the REPORT that it was flame-bait, as I didn't want to act rashly and then get into trouble for it, which is why I LOCKED the thread before it turned into a flame-war, instead of simply deleting it. And now, since you started another thread, instead of PMing me or Sherman directly, it gave Arty opportunity to complain about the moderators and "censorship" when there is none.
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION], would you be so kind as to move my post and the last few posts up to the post where Anna mentioned me to the "Spammer's Wasteland" thread? I PMed you the link to the original thread of Anna's.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would venture you were the reporter...

If you any more questions, please feel free to PM me.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's called a private message. :think:



Did you not see where I said I was waiting for Sherman to look at it?

I locked the thread, rather than deleted it outright, for a reason.



Too bad.



Here's the thing, though: I didn't give you an infraction.

I simply locked a thread of yours, because I had received a report that it was flame-bait, and wanted to check with Sherman before I did anything.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Sherman.



I never said it was.

I thought I had made my actions clear enough when I responded to your second thread. I guess not.

I said I was waiting for Sherman's opinion on the REPORT that it was flame-bait, as I didn't want to act rashly and then get into trouble for it, which is why I LOCKED the thread before it turned into a flame-war, instead of simply deleting it. And now, since you started another thread, instead of PMing me or Sherman directly, it gave Arty opportunity to complain about the moderators and "censorship" when there is none.
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION], would you be so kind as to move my post and the last few posts up to the post where Anna mentioned me to the "Spammer's Wasteland" thread? I PMed you the link to the original thread of Anna's.

Um, I didn't complain about the moderators JR. I pointed out a potential irony is all given talk about censorship over the years. That was it.

 

[Sherman]

I will add to this, please do not spam with flame bait images. TOL is for discussion, not posting a bunch of graphics.

 

[annabenedetti]

It's called a private message. :think:

Did you not see where I said I was waiting for Sherman to look at it?

I locked the thread, rather than deleted it outright, for a reason.

Here's the thing, though: I didn't give you an infraction.

I simply locked a thread of yours, because I had received a report that it was flame-bait, and wanted to check with Sherman before I did anything.

If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Sherman.

I never said it was.

I thought I had made my actions clear enough when I responded to your second thread. I guess not.

I'd like to respond to you and then I'll drop it and move on with the intent of this thread.

I've been here ten years now, I understand how PMs and infractions work. Just as my 2 cents from the peanut galley, when you close a thread without warning, would it be possible to post in the thread why you're closing it? That would be really helpful. Because I'm still not going to run to the mods with PMs, in all the years I've been here I haven't made a practice of it (or reporting posts made to me either, for that matter.) People who do that a lot end up being labeled as whiners, so if you could let people know why you've closed it, as a small gesture of magnanimity if nothing else? I know how this place works, and I generally (not always) try to stay within the lines.

As for posting images... I don't get why that's problem, honestly. Images convey messages, they're sometimes more eloquent and thought-provoking than words, and if they make a point in the discussion, why are they seen as spammy? Because someone disagrees with the message, as long as the image isn't breaking any rules of propriety, aren't they supposed to ignore it if they don't agree and don't want to engage?

Okay, that's it. I wish we had a forum where we could engage with the mods in a non-combative way, and then it wouldn't seem like there's nowhere else to say this.

Thanks for your time.

 

[annabenedetti]

From Malcolm Nance:

WARNING: We are in grave danger. Trumps says he declassified all allied intelligence fm FBI, GCHQ, MI6, AVID & ASIS for AG Barr to get revenge. This is the end of the 5-EYES relationship. No one will EVER share intelligence with us again.


The Other Shoe Dropping
Lawless Bill Gets His Gun

For everyone who’s been worried about Attorney General Bill Barr’s lawless reign at the Department of Justice last night was the big moment. As you’ve likely already seen President Trump gave Barr blanket authority to access and declassify any and all classified information from the country’s dozen and a half intelligence agencies in his quest to “investigate the investigators” of the Russia scandal.There’s hardly any way to overstate just how big a deal this is or how dangerous it is in the hands of a corrupt official like Bill Barr.

First, this power is totally unprecedented. The President is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not classified. There are processes in place and guidance he’s supposed to listen to to exercise that authority. But he doesn’t have to. Barr is free to disregard those rules, overrule the heads of the intelligence agencies in question in question or not even tell them what he’s doing. . . .​

 

[ok doser]

... I know how this place works...

you're a brilliant woman with a keen intellect, so it may come as a surprise to you that the way this place works bears little resemblance to the way this place used to work

when directed to jump by the mods, it's best just to smile and nod as you jump

and good luck trying to figure out what might set them off - as far as i can tell it's purely random



maybe you'd be happier over at pj's place :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

From Malcolm Nance:[FONT=&]

WARNING: We are in grave danger. Trumps says he declassified all allied intelligence fm FBI, GCHQ, MI6, AVID & ASIS for AG Barr to get revenge. This is the end of the 5-EYES relationship. No one will EVER share intelligence with us again.[/FONT]


The Other Shoe Dropping
Lawless Bill Gets His Gun

For everyone who’s been worried about Attorney General Bill Barr’s lawless reign at the Department of Justice last night was the big moment. As you’ve likely already seen President Trump gave Barr blanket authority to access and declassify any and all classified information from the country’s dozen and a half intelligence agencies in his quest to “investigate the investigators” of the Russia scandal.There’s hardly any way to overstate just how big a deal this is or how dangerous it is in the hands of a corrupt official like Bill Barr.

First, this power is totally unprecedented. The President is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not classified. There are processes in place and guidance he’s supposed to listen to to exercise that authority. But he doesn’t have to. Barr is free to disregard those rules, overrule the heads of the intelligence agencies in question in question or not even tell them what he’s doing. . . .​

the democrats attempted to remove a legitimately elected president-elect, then continued the process after he took office

iow, the democrats attempted a coup

attempting to get to the bottom of that attempted coup isn't "getting revenge" it's holding to account elected officials who acted illegally

 

[annabenedetti]

you're a brilliant woman with a keen intellect

Ciphertext now? Is there a codebook here somew- never mind. Don't really want to know.

so it may come as a surprise to you that the way this place works bears little resemblance to the way this place used to work

when directed to jump by the mods, it's best just to smile and nod as you jump

and good luck trying to figure out what might set them off - as far as i can tell it's purely random

It's always worked this way, what's different now is the random sighting of a previously-untouchable wearing red. I didn't think it was possible, like jackalopes.

 

[annabenedetti]

the democrats attempted to remove a legitimately elected president-elect, then continued the process after he took office

iow, the democrats attempted a coup

attempting to get to the bottom of that attempted coup isn't "getting revenge" it's holding to account elected officials who acted illegally

Attempted a coup? That's crazy talk perpetrated by the fever swamp of alt-right news.

 

[Rusha]

It's always worked this way, what's different now is the random sighting of a previously-untouchable wearing red. I didn't think it was possible, like jackalopes.

I, for one, appreciate the recent changes that have been implemented. Quality over quantity. I think the changes may encourage long time members who have been away for a bit to return.