sm62704's Journal: Comment Moderation

In the thread The Coming Digital Presidency , elrous0 (869638) wrote "A bit presumptuous to assume that, with Democrats fighting like cats and dogs among themselves now, the 'Coming Digital Presidency' won't actually feature a 72-year-old man who probably thinks YouTube is a new type of waterpark ride."

To which I responded:

I agree, it sure looks to me like McCain is going to be our next president. Obama's preacher is a racist, a white person voting for him would be like a black person voting for a white man whose preacher is a Klansman.

Hillary is just plain unlilkeable, taking votes away, even Democrat votes. Most Republicans hate her (because of her husband, who IMO was a good President esp. in comparison to our present Oil Baron Traitor in Chief) and won't vote for her, and I for one don't like her because her husband gave her the job of instituting national health care like the civilized world has and she botched it.

Myself, I'll be voting either Green or Libertarian, depending on who's on the ballot in Illinois. Mine will be a protest vote against our Corporate-owned government. We, the people, have been left out of the loop for far too long.

That said, there are a lot of seventy two year olds who ARE computer literate; I've met some. I gather there are a few on slashdot with low UIDs. I don't know about McCain but judging someone's computer literacy by their age is pretty ignorant.

BTW, I turn 56 next week. [kuro5hin.org]

I found the moderation of this comment fascinating! Here is the "Comment Moderation sent by Slashdot Message System on Thursday March 27, @12:05AM" with all but that comment excised:

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Interesting (+1).

It is currently scored Interesting (2).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Overrated (-1).

It is currently scored Interesting (1).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Informative (+1).

It is currently scored Informative (2).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Interesting (+1).

It is currently scored Interesting (3).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).

It is currently scored Interesting (2).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Interesting (+1).

It is currently scored Interesting (3).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).

It is currently scored Interesting (2).

A user had given a moderation of Flamebait (-1) to your comment, Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, attached to The Coming Digital Presidency. That moderation has now been undone, probably due to the user posting in the discussion after moderating in it. Your comment is currently scored Interesting (3).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Insightful (+1).

It is currently scored Interesting (4).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Overrated (-1).

It is currently scored Interesting (3).

A user had given a moderation of Insightful (+1) to your comment, Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, attached to The Coming Digital Presidency. That moderation has now been undone, probably due to the user posting in the discussion after moderating in it. Your comment is currently scored Interesting (2).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Overrated (-1).

It is currently scored Interesting (1).

Re:A bit presumptuous, no?, posted to The Coming Digital Presidency, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).

It is currently scored Flamebait (0).

From +4 interesting to 0 flamebait!

Now, my idea of "flamebait" would be a comment that is meant to offend. I don't understand what would be offfensive about that comment, but someone was obviously offended (or abused the moderation system). I do have theories, however. Well, not exactly theories but possible explanations. If you were the fucking asshole dumbass flamebait -1 (yes, now THAT'S flamebait) that moderated that comment "flamebait" I would truly appreciate your telling me what it was about the comment that offended you so.

I'm not upset, I'm puzzled. I'm curious.

Were you offended by the suggestion that Obama's preacher is a racist? If so you must be a) black and a racist yourself, or b) never visited his preacher's website before this flap started, as I did. I don't see how the man can call himself a Christian, let alone be a Christian preacher. But then again I don't see how anyone who could send men to die in a war in the middle east, whether the Crusades or the modern day Iraq war, and call himself a Christian, either. Christians aren't supposed to kill people, let alone send someone else to a foreign country to do their killing for them.

Was it the statement "Hillary is just plain unlilkeable"? Well, she is. When Clinton first ran for President, I registered as a Democrat to vote against him just because his wife rubbed me the wrong way (and still does). Actually I didn't care too much for Bill, either. He reminded me of Carter, who at the time was the worst president I'd seen in my lifetime. Even worse than Nixon, who did some terrible things to the country but did sign the Clean Air act and the Clean Water Act, and did other good as President. After Clinton was nominated I voted for him, as I disliked him less than the asshat he ran against. But he turned out to be a good Prsident, and when he ran for reelection I voted FOR him, rather than against his opponent.

It was the first time since I'd been a voter that I'd actually voted for anyone, and I've been voting since Nixon was President.

Was it the phrase "Oil Baron Traitor in Chief"? Gasoline costs over three times what it did when oil men Bush and Cheney took office. It's my firm belief that these oil men started the Iraq war for the sole purpose of further destabilising the middle east so that oil prices would skyrocket, as indeed they did. The Iraq war benefited nobody except the oil industry. Bush and Cheney profit at the expense of their country.

Well, that shouldn't offend anyone but the traitor himself, or confiirmed neocon Republicans who rode the short bus to school. Yes, if you blindly follow this man my opinion is you are lacking in judgement and reasoning skills. Believe it or not you CAN love your country while hating the people who are ruining it. I know this is a hard concept for some to grasp, but it's true. Know that I'm a veteran, having served during the Vietnam war (I volunteered, I was in no danger of being drafted), an even more useless war than the current Iraq war which is more damaging to our nation than Vietnam was.

Was it the phrase "Corporate-owned government"? If so, I'm PROUD of the "flamebait" that was proffered.

Of course, they could have been one of these guys, who I'm sure are the ones who consistantly moderate posts as "overrated". Of course, OTOH I doubt many of any of them ever get mod points, since most of them are trolls. I'm happy to note that this list is quite a bit longer.

"You have 42 messages waiting for you"

Wow. Just wow.

PS- I metamoderate almost every day. I mod the mods! ;P

Moderators suck

[JDWTopGuy]

I got modded "troll" for asking what a quote was from.

My plan is also to vote for any 3rd party. Even one I don't agree with. I don't think the libertarians are running a candidate this year, so it probably will be a party I don't agree with. However, I'm more concerned with showing dissent than voting for a winner. Is that your POV also? Although you're probably more likely to agree with green/etc than I am, so perhaps that doesn't apply.

Either way, I totally support not supporting the big dumb two. An int

Re:

[sm62704]

Is that your POV also?

Yes, although I, too, would rather vote for the Libertarian. I like hookers, and the Libertarians are against passing laws against victimless crimes. I'm no gambler but I believe a person should have the right to ruin his life any way he wants to. And as a former hippie I think laws against pot are absurd; nobody ever died from it and it is non-addictive (most of us stopped smoking it when Reagan was in office), while tobacco kills almost all of its users and may possibly be the most a

Re:

[JDWTopGuy]

Yeah, I must have been mistaken. Apparently [lp.org] they have at least 4 possible candidates.

Personally, I smoke (cigarettes and cigars) but don't find it addictive; I can and do stop for days at a time when I travel or run out, and it doesn't give me any withdrawal symptoms. I agree though that government really shouldn't be regulating voluntary personal use of pretty much any drug.

Re:

[sm62704]

Mark Twain famously said "it's easy to quit smoking, I've done it a thousand times".

I smoked cigarettes for 30 years, quitting [kuro5hin.org] was the hardest thing I've ever done. Haven't had one since 1999.

Re:

[JDWTopGuy]

Just curious, how many did you smoke in a given day/week? My max is 5 (fags, not packs) a day, my average is more like 1-2.

Re:

[sm62704]

A pack to a pack and a half a day.

Re:

[FredFredrickson]

(See my signature)

Re:

[JDWTopGuy]

I used to be more active and annoying on /., that's probably why. :P

Re:

[amRadioHed]

Same here. I watched the full sermon's and there was nothing racist about them at all. The Wright ordeal was just another bullshit contrived cable news pseudo-controversy.

Re:

[sm62704]

I didn't see the videos, I saw his church's web site when Obama was running for Senate. You don't think "white devils" is racist?

Re:

[amRadioHed]

I'd like to see a link to that reference before deciding. Words are meaningless without context.

Re:

[sm62704]

I would too, but it's been taken down and I can't find it in either the wayback machine or google cache. Sorry.