March 20, 2007
Should David Mathews Be Banned?

9:30 PM UPDATE: Well, that brought more attention in the comments than I suspected, and probably more than the topic deserved.

Mathews stays. A ban was unlikely, though my query was in response to a number of readers who have rightly expressed frustration with his posting etiquette. As such, Mr. Mathews, I encourage you to be more selective in responding to other commenters, out of respect for the ability of others to "converse". The volume of your posts and content can be a bit excessive, regardless of one's take on your views.

And to everyone else, I offer this advice: if you really don't like his comments (and much of humanity doesn't it would seem...that whole self-preservation of the species being of interest to us and all), DON'T RESPOND TO THEM!

Thanks to everyone for chiming in, even thatcher at #135 who has renewed his annual membership in the Eric Earling is the Coolest Blogger of All-Time Fan Club.

Seriously, thanks for reading. Good night.

P.S. Isn't the Easter Bunny coming soon?

****

Semi-regular commenter David Mathews tends to raise a stink when he weighs in to various threads, see the latest version here at this post. Mr. Mathews brings a special strain of liberalism to the table for these discussions. He tends to offend readers with his extreme positions on global warming as well as the war on terrorism and US foreign policy.

Some commenters have in the past requested he be banned. I've been hesitant to do so since it's a step I prefer to avoid if possible. The only commenter I've banned from my posts is "Steve/Sue/Conservative Not Republican"...and even that is simply an extension of Stefan choosing the ban the fool for inappropriate behavior.

That being said, Mathews tends to takeover comment threads with a flurry of posts, at least 30 by my count in the 117 comments in the post cited above. Moreover, such threads tend to go off topic, sometimes quite dramatically. Now, "Army/Medic Vet" points out in this last thread that Mathews isn't even local, he lives in Florida.

I welcome readers from all over, but want the comment threads to actually provide a useful forum for discussion, especially for local readers. That doesn't happen when any one commenter, no matter what their positions, tends to dominate the thread by responding to all comers. Policing the comments is not a step I'd prefer to take, though I'm inclined at this point to limit Mathews rather than ban him.

Please offer your thoughts in the comments. I'll take them into account before making a decision.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 20, 2007 09:30 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Eric, when David posts I just ignore it.

Posted by: Bob on March 20, 2007 07:13 AM
2. Let him stay. It's always enlightening to see Liberals display their mental illness in full view. It's a good reminder that along with the terrorists who the enemies of freedom really are.

Posted by: swassociates on March 20, 2007 07:16 AM
3. Okay, give him a chance.

However, when he gets on a tangent, which is always, he does take over a thread. But, he gets egged on by the regular SP posters. After a while, they should just ignore him instead of getting the "last word" which won't ever happen.

I like reading the SP posters, but not on a David Matthews thread. The SP posts as well as David Matthews posts tend to be long and repetitive, so I personally have begun to bypass the thread, except for posts asking SP posters to not feed the poster.

The DM posts are beginning to be more gibberish than a rehash of alternative points of view.

Ban him? That is your call, but it sure does have your faithful up in arms. I still think internal policing by not feeding him by regular SP posters is the answer.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 07:16 AM
4. If the tables were turned, would DM ban us on his website? Probably.........as tolerant libs are anything but.

Should he be banned here? Of course not.

Should his drivel even be responded to here? For me, not worth the trouble responding any further to complete and unhinged delirium in the form of DM ......let him vent, like a fart in the wind....

Posted by: Hank on March 20, 2007 07:17 AM
5. I just ignore him. True, when you ignore someone's comments it makes them feel as if they've "won" because obviously "no one is able to respond adequately to my brilliant arguments" but they eventually go away.

OTOH, going off topic is grounds for warnings and deletion of posts.

Posted by: Frank Black on March 20, 2007 07:24 AM
6. DM is soooooo verrrryyyy boring!

Posted by: Clusiana on March 20, 2007 07:30 AM
7. I do not think he should be banned. Actually I find that his posts are actually quite enlightening in the way they show how the looney left has a one track mind. Let him continue with his "I hate America" rants for all to see.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 20, 2007 07:39 AM
8. As much as we'd like to ban car wrecks, we still drive slowly by them and make a mental note of how it happened and the consequences of the action. DM is the wreck we get to drive slowly by and thank God we're not in that wreckage.
Let him keep spewing and when he goes off topic, we just shouldn't respond to it.

Posted by: PC on March 20, 2007 07:43 AM
9. I think banning should be reserved for people who are abusing the blog in a more severe way than David Matthews currently is. Off topic is not sufficient since many people have been willing to go off topic, and that would set a bad precidence or end up being used arbitrarily, and then we would be accused of being prejudiced aginst liberal views.

Also, we have not given him fair warning about his off topic posts and the consequences thereof. Frank Black has it right, I think. Warn him to stay on topic and begin to remove blatently off-topic posts.

I personally do not want to remove dissenting voices no matter how much I might feel they are inaccurate. Without debate we become the echo chamber we accuse the left of living in.

It is my opinion that on some matters you can see the evolution of David's thoughts and arguments as he has encountered a reality different than his own, though his anti-American screed is virtually unaltered. I think David feels deeply betrayed because the message he is bombarded with by the liberals shattered his previously held Naiveté about America. It appears to be a classic radical pendulum swing, but I am only conjecturing here. I think that keeping David here will do more good for him than it will harm us.

Posted by: Eyago on March 20, 2007 07:57 AM
10. His theology is infantile and his grasp of the scientific enquiry is rudimentary to say the least.

That being said, the Doombat does serve a purpose, in as much as his rapid-fire posting recitation of leftist dogma gives one the chance to hone their apologetics prior to having a discussion with someone of substance from the other side of the isle.

He is a buffoon and a caricature of what he purports to be, and I would guess an embarrassment to people who share his worldview but are much smarter and articulate than he. I have not seen a cause he has taken up in which he has not done violence to that side of the argument that he purports to be championing.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 08:06 AM
11. how about a compromise.

Limit him to two posts a day, and a limit to the number of words/letters in each post. I would think that would keep him from flooding a thread without "stifeling" him.

Why two posts? Well, when he posts nonsense, he gets challenged. His tactic has been to try to change the subject, or to ignore the points made. By limiting him to two posts, it will tend to keep him on-topic. He'll post his nonsense, get reasonable challenges, then he'll have one chance to back up his nonsense for the day.

By limiting the length of his posts, you'll get away from the old tactic of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.


Posted by: thecomputerguy on March 20, 2007 08:13 AM
12. Daily limit is the best solution

Ken

Posted by: Ken on March 20, 2007 08:25 AM
13. In my mind, it should be all or nothing. Either he is allowed to post or he isn't. The moderator can't police everything.

I still think ignoring him after a while is the best solution. I know, I know, that sometimes mean he gets in the last word, but he always does anyway.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 08:25 AM
14. Well I'm not sure how some will go for this.

David M post go on & on about the same darn thing. I never changes.
Talk about a broken recorder.
I also believe david comes here because he has been kicked out of other web sites. I mean really can can't find one of his liking in FL?

Let him stay if you wish, but for myself I've grown very tired of him.

Bush lied, people died, The earth is dying tomorrow, it's all our fault. He never stops.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 08:35 AM
15. I agree with Eyago @ 9. Warn him about going off topic and remove the blatant examples. The moderator already polices for things like obscene language, it's not that much of an extra burden to determine if a post is wildly off topic.

Posted by: sro on March 20, 2007 08:37 AM
16. I don't see a difference between a limit and a ban. A limit will only invite him to write a novel with each post.

I think he should be put on probation. When a commenter is on probation then they can be temporarily banned for each infraction. Off topic; 24-hour ban. Unrelenting in pushing an unsupportable position with multiple comments; 48-hours. Arguing upon return the reasons for the ban; 72 hours. Etc.

Each ban is followed within the tread with an ADMIN comment explaining the ban and duration.

If it is determined during the probationary period that the poster can't control himself, then he gets a 30-day ban, that increases in duration with each round of infractions.

Yeah, this will take some effort on the part of the ADMINS to police, but in fairness the goal should be to correct the bad behavior and not simply push him to abuse some other blogs.

Posted by: MJC on March 20, 2007 08:37 AM
17. I don't think David should be banned. That's kind of contrary to the philosophy of developing discussion and debate. However, I do think too many of us, myself included, allow David to goad us into an emotional response, just because he is, as PC noted, like a car wreck and we react. Let him keep spewing. He's a vivid illustration of the completely deranged progressive segments of our political spectrum and is a useful reminder of what we are up against.

Posted by: katomar on March 20, 2007 08:42 AM
18. I take back what I said.

Warn David to knock it off and stay on topic.

Maybe, just maybe he & us will learn something?

If not then, say good by.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 08:43 AM
19. My impression is that he just comes here for the attention. It's possible he doesn't even believe any of the BS he spouts. He doesn't offend me, and I will ignore him in the future. Ban him or not. Your choice.

Posted by: NW Denizen on March 20, 2007 08:59 AM
20. If D.M. was just another Republican cheerleader, there would be no consideration of banning or limitation. I just scan his posts and mostly skip them. Let all ideas be posted and ban the obscene Etc. I can't believe this is even being considered.

Posted by: Rocketdog on March 20, 2007 08:59 AM
21. When I think Dave Matthews, I think boring, crappy music. He was the opening act for the The Stones last year at Qwest, and it was interminable.

Posted by: John Bailo on March 20, 2007 09:05 AM
22. Oh folks, I am still trying to find a creative way to use terrorist and burka in the same sentence in response to David et al. Oh, I just did. Now, David et al will find me attractive.
David et al is part of an astroturf movement that includes "mainstream" apologists like Esposito of Georgetown and he hasn't been banned. Consider David et al training for the arguments that people with any intelligence will have to make in other settings. Remember "An Inconvenient Truth" is being shown in schools. Now scientists with contra opinions can't get funding, get death threats, and there is a report that a climatologist at UW, I believe may have been fired. Can't believe that I am sticking up for my punching bag buddy. Secular progressives, like totalitarian groups want to control all thought. That is what is happening in China with the Internet and web cafes. Mugabe of Zimbabwe has taken a page from the Chinese on control of the Internet and is killing his opposition. If you can't kick David et al's butt using his own ideas against them, we are in trouble. The reason that they keep repeating is that different people write the posts and they don't always remember what the other person said.

Now, David et al. I have used burka and terrorist in a sentence. Pretty soon, I can ask you the question, what makes me so attractive. Is it the burka or the smell of gunpowder?

Posted by: WVH on March 20, 2007 09:11 AM
23. It's no problem if he stays.

JUST DON"T FEED THE TROLLS and he will go away on his own.

Posted by: kim in vancouver on March 20, 2007 09:17 AM
24. 20. Rocketdog

If D.M. was just another Republican cheerleader, there would be no consideration of banning

Sorry Dog, but I don't think anyone is buying that statement!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 09:19 AM
25. Odd, where is David?

The mornings are usually his time to be here.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 09:22 AM
26. Eric,

Granted, I don't post as many articles as yourself and I haven't had the poster in question respond to my writings.
But the measuring stick I use is how topical the comment is to the thread of discussion.
For example, if I write something decrying the inequities of the Viaduct/Tunnel vote and someone were to go off on a tangent about the Iraq War, corrupt Republican(or Democrat) congressmen or pointing out a website where you can increase the size of your phallic organ, that post gets deleted.
Granted, we can't be on top of everything. But a firm hand at the wheel and liberal use of the cat makes a good captain.
As Caligula said "Let them fear me so long as they obey me."

Posted by: Reporterward on March 20, 2007 09:25 AM
27. Are you kidding? Just because he expresses an opinion that irritates the heck out of the rest of us is not a reason to deny him a forum for his point of view. That's what this is all about.

I've always believed that one of the hallmarks of being a conservative is to suffer fools because the truth of things will prove out in the end, so there is no reason to sully our stand on free speech by shouting people down, shutting people down, or shutting people out.

Posted by: formerbusrider on March 20, 2007 09:30 AM
28. Posting on someone else's website is a privilege and not a Constitutional right. We are all guests in another's house. We are obliged to follow their rules. I'd say if rules are violated often and egregiously enough, then banning might be an appropriate sanction. If rules haven't been grossly violated, it would be a questionable tactic, but still within the rights of the site owner. Kind of like at-will employment. So I'd say unless the rules were broken to the extent of requiring sanction, there is no need for banning. At least that's how I'd handle it if it were my site.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 20, 2007 09:33 AM
29. I say let him stay. Unless, of course, he's having some effect on server performance or something. ;~) But if it is just his opinion that people object to than let him stay.

The history of conservatives (since Ray-Gun at least) is that they let all voices speak. That has how we've refined our arguments over the years. Different opinion is only good for us as a whole. He's easy to ignore anyway.

One cravat. Maybe some effort should be made to at least keep him on topic and maybe base a possible future banning on that aspect. It is only reasonable to expect him to post on subject and be of good behavior. Off loading a huge, off topic, cut and paste is not good behavior.

Posted by: G Jiggy on March 20, 2007 09:34 AM
30. How about just using the Rush treatment? Laugh at him, BWWWUU HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: Carol Kujawa on March 20, 2007 09:37 AM
31. I say ban him. If not then all DM posts should have his name at the begining of the post so I can see who it is from before I get suckered into reading any of it.

Posted by: Kirk on March 20, 2007 09:38 AM
32. The old adage is, give the village idiot the biggest megaphone and stick him on the highest hill in the land. Ignore him if you choose, and let others laugh and point. Also see: DM

Posted by: jimg on March 20, 2007 09:59 AM
33. Nah... let him stay. I'd hate for the site to follow in the footsteps of stilwell's effort over at NPI, where any deviation from the party line vill not be tolerated!

The thing to do, you see, is ignore him... and that's what I pledge to do... when he goes into the twilight zone or wherever it is he's coming from.

Posted by: Hinton on March 20, 2007 10:14 AM
34. The kid over at NW Progressive bans posters if he doesn't like the content. Keep DM and show the leftists that we still believe in free speech.

Posted by: John425 on March 20, 2007 10:16 AM
35. I feel that this web site should ban all comments by people that make other people want to post on it. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 10:20 AM
36. ambivalent on this--

this conservative wants to walk the talk for diversity of opinions (except the customary dangerous and offensive common sense bans). my only complaint is his sheer volume of off-point attachment-arguments.

ultimately, your show your call. thanks for asking, though. and as for banning & "how it looks," who cares what people think. they can find another thread/site.

i like 11, 28 & 32--give him a few get out of jail cards. doubt you'd get the same courtesy from the left. maybe people here actually LIKE to joust with him. or maybe they're tired of it by now.

seems like his goal is to only to fill the thread or jam the waves with volume. is there a "volume abuse limit?" dosent seem like others here do. most here are to the point. he simply likes the sound of his voice--here, there, anywhere. parental analogy here: just dont let the kids run the house. everything has limits.

as for residency, who cares. the real locals know each other or local issues from thread content. generic non-local spouters like him are easily filtered out by local readers.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 20, 2007 10:34 AM
37. we can also take the lib global warming solution & charge him (to the SP kitty) for hot air carbon credits based on word volume.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 20, 2007 10:37 AM
38. If you ban him you are no better than the quick-to-ban PI and Times.

Do you really want that in common with them?

Of course not.

This kid is an education in 'how not to think'.

Let him babble unfettered, uncensored and absolutely encouraged in all his mindless glory.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 20, 2007 10:38 AM
39. No, don't ban the guy. He proves Republicans right whenever he speaks.

Now GOLDSTEIN...that's a guy who needs to be banned.

Posted by: Sakaki on March 20, 2007 10:45 AM
40. And so to summarize, the people whining the most and wanted him banned now say keep him. And they say they will keep feeding him.

Go figure.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 10:47 AM
41. 'David Mathews' is a classic troll. Most of his comments are attempts to seize the discussion and divert it away from the topic at hand, for example by making extreme statements attacking George Bush.

Her success in filling up this blog with irrelevent exchanges of invective is in proportion to the number of commentors here who feel he needs a response. She doesn't. He's like a graffiti artist, defacing innocent walls to hurt innocent spectators - or like a child seizing public attention via public tantrums. Pass on by and stick to the topic - exchanges with her are no more productive than wrestling in the mud with a pig.

No need to ban him - ignoring is a better response.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 20, 2007 10:50 AM
42. Absolutely do not ban David Mathews. The best way to expose the Left is to give them a mountaintop from on which to preach. It might be hard for the Average Joe to discern the bias and irrational ideas on the part of a mainstream journalist, or a TV news anchor. But it's easy to see that the nihilist views of David Mathews will lead to a lower quality of life for Average Joe.

The average mush head that leans a bit left, needs to see just how pernicious those who speak for the left really are in their views.

All that said, I agree with Don Ward, if it goes way off topic or has the kind of profanity that you read in every single comment thread at HorsesAss.org, then it should be deleted. And I like the limit idea if it is automated. It's not a ban, just a means to allow others to comment without screenfuls of anti-man screed.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 20, 2007 10:52 AM
43. This is boring, let's get back to propagating the vast right wing conspiracy.

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 10:58 AM
44. Please DON'T ban him. It would be a mistake. Even if his comments are 100% crap or acerbic or off-topic or all of the above, don't censor him. One of the biggest criticisms against conservatives (of which I consider myself one) is that we are intolerant or do not engage in meaningful discourse.
Instead, just ignore his garbage - don't get sucked into it. He's just baiting us. (as opposed to debating)
Allowing Dave (and any other extremists) to continue to post would rebut any potential claims of censorship and would allow Dave (or the commenter) to choke themselves with their own words.
Its just like life with a 2-year old. Ignore the bad conduct, reward the good.

Posted by: Andrew on March 20, 2007 11:07 AM
45. I'm not in favor of banning the guy. I maintain my suspicions that he's on the take from Move On, or some other leftist organization. When he said he voted for Bush twice, (comment #30 in the thread referenced above), I smelled seminar lefty big time. Well, maybe he made an innocent typo and meant to say that he voted for Ralph Nader twice, which is probably much more likely.

As many of us have experienced, feeding him only encourages him endlessly. And indeed it certainly is a curious thing that someone living in Florida would have such an interest in Washington State politics.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 20, 2007 11:17 AM
46. I don't suppose you could filter his comments, and just allow the ones that actually are relevant and bring something new to the table? Quality vs. quantity. That would be way too much work, I imagine.

He has other sites he visits, BTW. However, I believe he may have been banned from some of them, as his comments come to an abrupt halt. He leaves the same old comments wherever he goes! Anyone here in favor of taking up a fund to enroll Mr. Mathews in a creative writing class, so he can at least be entertaining? Blah blah blah obese Americans blah blah blah species is doomed blah blah blah I care about the world you are leaving for your children, but you don't blah blah blah the polar bears are suffering blah blah blah insert quote from the Bible or Koran here blah blah blah Bush and big oil companies are evil blah blah blah ...

It is your site, and you can do what you want! As to worrying whether you are stifling free expression, I wouldn't. Plenty of people post contrary opinions here, besides David Mathews. Cato, Bruce and ivan have been here a while, but they don't produce quite the volume that Mathews does. Personally, I find it irritating that he leaves so much verbiage to wade through. I like to come over here and read the comments, but I don't need to read his. I already know what they say. He might as well just copy and paste the same post ad infinitum. However, it makes it harder to find the comments that do contain new or interesting information and opinions.

Also, it is tempting to bait and feed the troll, as someone else pointed out. I don't think we're going to get everyone to starve him off. I admit, I've fed him a couple of times myself. Personally, I'm in favor of banning him. I think he'd have a better life if nobody talked to him online. Then he'd be forced to get out and really interact with people.

Posted by: Peggy U on March 20, 2007 11:18 AM
47. I care as much about libs' accusations of conservative intolerance as I do about their assertions of anthropogenic global warming -- they both have about the same basis in truth. SP is essentially private property, so the editors have every right to ban him -- nice, clean litmus test of unacceptable behavior or not.

Having said that, let me do a 180 here. I almost invariably ignore DM's comments, but find that he is a shining beacon of moonbattery for all the world to see, so it's the best of both worlds.

Posted by: TB on March 20, 2007 11:26 AM
48. WOW, just look at how many have spoken about David M.

That may give you a hint on how often he comes to the site and just talks us to death.

I'm loving this. LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 11:27 AM
49. I have witnessed him try ad infinitum to elicit a response to some question that is, at best, ancillary to the topic of discussion. He attempts to portray himself as a particularly open-minded one-way enlightener of the benighted, however what he comes across as is a dogmatic buffoon who's views are a regurgitation of what ever the Hollywood Sage de jour or the NY Times latest incarnation of Walter Duranty or Jayson Blair has to say on the subject of discussion.

His theology is particularly infantile, a mélange of practically every theory which has been not only discredited, but branded as utter nonsense by theologians for centuries. It is reminiscent of what one would expect to hear from a college coed who has never seriously considered the subject yet makes pronouncements on the wisdom of the Kaballah after watching and listening to Madonna spew on the subject a few times.

Nothing the guy says is particularly enlightening, nor has he ever brought a fresh perspective to the table. What amazes me is the thoroughness with which most every argument he has brought forth has been previously demolished and with such rigor as to leave it untenable. Most serious proponents of causes he champions will no longer touch the pseudoscientific rubbish he trots out as being compelling yet he continues to insist on it's authenticity.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 11:27 AM
50. I say don't ban him. He's sometimes amusing and does strengthen our convictions. We can ignore most of his posts, but occasionally his raving does foster good input from normal people.

Posted by: dan on March 20, 2007 11:29 AM
51. Bill @ 45: Don't you mean "I maintain my suspicions that he's on the take from Karl Rove"? It's that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you know! =)

Posted by: TB on March 20, 2007 11:32 AM
52. Eric.

I went back and counted just how many times David M chimed in. Of 118 comments, 30 of them were David.

The guy must be bored with living in FL I guess? (-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 11:47 AM
53. There is a big difference is allowing a difference of opinion and letting someone hog the conversation because they know you are too polite to tell them to behave or leave. (David Limbaugh has an excellent article on this today).

DM needs to be treated like a toddler--if he can't post commentary relevant to the discussion at hand, he gets one more chance and then is put in "time out" for a specified time. One or two days of banishment is not enough--make it a week for the first offense, a month for the second and permanent for the third. Three strikes and you're out.

Either he will learn to disgree with the specific issue or he will have to go elsewhere to spew his nonsense. I personally am pretty tired of having to put up with rude behavior because our PC society doesn't want to hurt the "widdle feewings" of rubes like DM.

Posted by: Burdabee on March 20, 2007 11:52 AM
54. Banning speech is wrong. Period.

Posted by: DJ on March 20, 2007 11:54 AM
55. 54.

No-one is banning speech DJ.
David can go anywhere he wants to spew, just not hog this site!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 11:57 AM
56. Banning speech is wrong. Period.

Woo, let's all go out and burn American flags. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 11:58 AM
57. Yea he's a liberal but I say let him stay. It's always good to see how the opposition is thinking. The guy that I wish Sound Politics would ban is Eric Earling, his articles are garbage and he seems to spread hate and discontent amongst true conservative Republicans. I can't believe some of the crap he comes up with and his all knowing demeanor is wearing thin. Eric, get out in the real world and get in contact with the grassroots of our party, your superior attitude won't help us win any elections in 2008.

Posted by: Runmaster on March 20, 2007 12:08 PM
58. Could you implement some mechanism to allow individual users to ignore his message? Something like showing the message number and then a message about "you have elected to ignore messages from this user". Then we won't have to wade through crap we don't want to read.

If that isn't doable, how about putting the "Posted by" line first? Then you can tell sooner if you want to bother reading that message?

Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on March 20, 2007 12:09 PM
59. I've always considered moonbats like DM to be our equivalent to the Greek Chorus device in drama. The problem in DM's case is that he really doesn't advance the plot line. I suppose it would be more accurate to think of him, as others have said, as a "beacon of moonbattitry..." fixed, immobile, regular, and unthinking. He's not just perpetually on a tangent; his is a case of planned irrelevance and long-line troll fishing for reactions; fishing for posters that are deluded into thinking that they are engaging someone that has the ability to think, rather than a mindless bot.

Mixed metaphors, yes, but then we are discussing DM...

He's been "owned" more than any other poster that I can think of and more regularly, but it doesn't matter to him. Rather sad, actually. Instead of banning, I'd rather see each nonsense post replaced by a "------DM drivel-----" label, and let it go at that. Save bandwidth and irritation. Starve him of the reactions he apparently feeds upon, and dele what apparently is his only spawn. He might even learn to consider content prior to posting. Hmmm...well, I don't really believe that, but I suppose that it is possible. Hope springs eternal.

Posted by: scott158 on March 20, 2007 12:17 PM
60. I am not in favor of banning DM. If there is any such thing as an open minded liberal, perhaps they will see him make an argument that they have believed themselves, just to see it shot down in a fiery crash by someone on this site. I haven't seen him really abuse this site that badly, I mean he does get overly verbose, that's when I just move on and quit reading, but he is really just responding to troll feeders. Often it is just regurgitating the same foul crap that he tries to sell all the time. He truly is an useful idiot, our useful idiot.

Posted by: REBEL on March 20, 2007 12:25 PM
61. I wouldn't ban anyone for simply commenting a different viewpoint (and I know neither would you)--especially if they were civil--but when someone just gratuitously and continuously takes over entire threads even while getting off-topic badly and over and over it is just really a waste of everyone's time. People know not to even read it anymore, so it becomes useless. So I think banning at this point could be appropriate.

Posted by: Michele on March 20, 2007 12:28 PM
62. Don't ban DM. Reading his posts (if I bother) is cheaper than sleeping pills.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 20, 2007 12:29 PM
63. I still maintain that David Matthews is a creation of Sound Politics and does not really exist, except as a traffic generator. Observe the traffic on this crazy post.

An entity with the same name as a sappy musician, lives in the diametric part of the country, is a photographer and writes perfect liberal mantra.

Why would a floridian be so interested in Puget Sound? Has anyone met him? Has anyone ever seen his posts on other blogs? Has anyone bought one of his photos?

Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 20, 2007 12:31 PM
64. I can't believe we actually have a post asking the question!?!

Posted by: Danny on March 20, 2007 12:40 PM
65. Face it: Dave Mathews is a spammer.

A spammer is what you get when you feed a troll.

Posted by: Jack Burton on March 20, 2007 12:45 PM
66. LOL.

65 posts later, you better believe it Danny.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 12:46 PM
67. Hats off to David Matthews! He has won. Look at what he achieved. Way to go, Eric.

Posted by: Danny on March 20, 2007 12:49 PM
68. Danny, and the prize is??????

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 12:51 PM
69. The prize is way more attention than he ever warranted, much less deserved. You swat a gnat, you don't feed it. His ego must be about to burst right now.

Posted by: Danny on March 20, 2007 01:00 PM
70. Florida sucks. I lived there before and couldn't wait to leave. I couldn't care less how the weather is there and whether DM used his air conditioner on a given day. It was hot there 25 years ago, and it's hot there today, it will be hot there in 25 years too. Fabulous.

I agree - he's a spammer. Spamming should not be tolerated. Delete posts, ban him, whatever.

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2007 01:08 PM
71. Don't ban him, but mark every post in response to him as "Feeding the Troll" in big red letters, and keep a count of those who qualify. Then start banning those people, if they don't get the message.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on March 20, 2007 01:18 PM
72. Is this the only thing happening on this site today? Consensus seems to be to keep DM on. Now let's talk about something more interesting.

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 01:24 PM
73. 72. Cato

Sorry Cato, this thread is about David. Now if you don't like that. Maybe another site will be more of your liking. (-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 01:41 PM
74. Bart: Yes, he must exist, and apparently has limitless time on his hands. Here are a few other places he has been:

www.futurepundit.com/mt/mt-altcomments.cgi?entry_id=4079

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2214/154548

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/07/texas_closer_to.html


If you want to do a google search, type in his name, obese, and environmental - you'll find plenty. Or pick any other of his pet phrases. I'm sure you'd find just as much. If he is shut down here, he's still got lots of places to hang out. Don't worry about him!

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 01:48 PM
75. 74. PeggyU

Did you notice that on these web sites they are all saying the same thing about David M. (he's goes on & on)
Plus SHUT UP DAVID.

This fool never get's the hint. )-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 01:54 PM
76. Cato:

I think you are jealous. You often attempt at imitating David's ability to set us off, yet we are talking about him.

You do however do a better job of saying on topic, so congrats.

Maybe you should let Eric, and the other SP posters, know what it is you'd like to discuss. And leave the war and global warming out...then you would really be grouped with DM.

Posted by: Chris on March 20, 2007 01:56 PM
77. I find him silly, abusive and creepy -- but he does provide a glimpse at what lives under the rocks. I say let him stay if he wants. We can't help but be a good influence on him!

Posted by: starboardhelm on March 20, 2007 01:59 PM
78. One of many comments I just read at other sites.
__________________________________________________

Mr. Mathews is a doomer troll over at The Oil Drum, and may not have an account there for much longer.

__________________________________________________

Wow Dave your not liked at all.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 02:00 PM
79. If you don't respond to his idiotic posts you deprive him what he needs.

Posted by: Larry Croix on March 20, 2007 02:01 PM
80. I don't know about Davey-boy, but I do know why Jesse Jackson is being treated for herpes....

http://www.websophist.com/Sheehan_Humps_Jackson_AN.gif

Posted by: Rey Smith on March 20, 2007 02:04 PM
81. He finally did it.

___________________________________________
FYI: Dave Mathews has been banned from The Oil Drum. The sudden lack of trolling was immediately obvious, and later the staff confirmed it.
(FuturePundit)

Thanks PeggyU. Your info was helpful.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 02:06 PM
82. At the risk of being as bad as David Mathews and going off topic (though still on the subject of free speech) here is something some of you may be interested in, particularly if you are a college student or the parent of one.

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 02:17 PM
83. It says a great deal about SP'ers that while we view DM with such disdain and donwright distaste, we still defend his free speech. Bravo! That free speech is to be upheld is a Conservative viewpoint, by the way.

Posted by: katomar on March 20, 2007 02:35 PM
84. Moderator:

I would like to think you already answered the question before you posed it.

If you had a verbal debate with a student group, would you allow 30% of the time to be taken up by a student who went constantly off topic or was irrational? Why not?

Question answered.

Posted by: Ken on March 20, 2007 02:36 PM
85. Hello Everyone,

82 posts on this topic ... that is pretty impressive.

Yes, I do speak to those whose opinions contradict my own. For example, my great crime at The Oil Drum as pointing out that the website excessively represented the oil industry. That's not the sort of message that those responsible wanted to hear because it is vitally important for that blog to represent itself as an "objective" source of information.

As to the question of repetitiveness, did anyone count all the posts at SoundPolitics which were claiming to refute Global Warming merely by the argument, "It's winter!"

My opinion of the United States of America: I don't worship the United States. America is a nation which has a long history of committing sins, atrocities and aggressions. The 21st century reveals that all of these behaviors continue. So I will criticize our nation and remember all of the blood which America has shed because I suspect that the vast majority of patriots have forgotten.

I am absolutely opposed to prejudice & bigotry in all of its forms. You would be amazed at how angry people become when prejudice & bigotry are challenged. But I speak out against these evils without regrets or any concern about the consequences.

I am also opposed to warfare and militarism. The world has already suffered enough from violence and bloodshed. Here is a problem which humankind has not solved and doesn't want to solve, either.

Finally, I am opposed to gluttony, wastefulness, destroying the environment for any cause, and pollution. I don't believe that such behaviors are wise, nor are they healthy, nor are they without consequences.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 02:51 PM
86. . . . and here he is! Kudos for chutzpah, Davey!

However, it's one thing to be against all those things you list, and quite another to accuse others of being for them just because they don't agree with your loonier ideas.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Posted by: starboardhelm on March 20, 2007 03:01 PM
87. Just stay on point and don't respond to his questions that are not germane to the particular issue being debated. It is good practice for times when you will have someone who has more on the ball than David Mathews. Debating someone like Mathews who has all of the depth and IQ than a sardine tin is kind of a pedantic exercise, but it does have value in allowing one to practice and critique their own arguments.

Mathews will haul out each and every bit of phony-baloney "evidence" that the rest of the GW Cassandra's bow down and sing hosannas at the mere mention of. You will have a very much easier time with them when fielded by Mathews than you would had they been brought to the field by someone with a higher degree of competence and practicing on him will help to sharpen your skills.

I have had conversations with people who had bought into the Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW argument who had quite a bit more to offer intellectually than Mathew's simple-minded regurgitation of "talking points and was able to stay one step ahead of them and on some occasions have even been able to convince them that they owed it to themselves to take a look at catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from a truly scientific and skeptical perspective.

Had I not had the likes of Mathews to practice on, it is debatable that I would have been successful in this. I have looked at the evidence from many perspectives and find the "Solar Activity Influenced Global Warming That Falls Within the Historical Range and is Expected to Continue To Do So" argument to be most compelling and the "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" argument to be poorly researched, poorly documented and reliant on gross speculation based upon flawed models.

I am certainly not competent to explain the science in any depth, however I can interest intelligent and inquisitive people in doing thorough research on the subject and giving both sides equal consideration.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 03:10 PM
88. Keep David ban Cato

Posted by: greg sims on March 20, 2007 03:19 PM
89. I think Dave Matthews should stick to playing rock and roll and forget about politics. Who does he think he is anyway, Sean Penn or someone?

Oh... wrong David Matthews?
Never mind...

Posted by: The End on March 20, 2007 03:25 PM
90. Re: Greg @ 88:
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine. =P

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 03:25 PM
91. This isn't a question for us.

The real question is 'does Mathews cause problems requiring additional moderation, etc', and it should go to those running the site.

I will go on record as saying you have a strong tendency to repeat the same arguments over and over, winning through attrition rather than reasonable debate. If your side is convincing enough present evidence, not diatribe.

A post limit might not be a bad suggestion too, but that would require a few other changes.

Posted by: Leonson on March 20, 2007 03:26 PM
92. Re: Greg @ 88:
Delusions of grandeur aside...I think this would be more appropriate:
If you strike me down, I shall become more annoying than you could possibly imagine.

You guys crack me up, especially Michele & Palouse. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 03:31 PM
93. Hello JDH,

I find it amusing that you speak about Catastrophic Anthropogenic GW argument in a post in which you claim to succeed in your argument.

Conservatives concede that Global Warming is occurring across the entire scale of society from ExxonMobil to the Competitive Enterprise Institute to the people who post here at SoundPolitics.

Needless to say, there is a bit of cognitive dissonance among conservatives: They concede what they deny.

Since winter is coming to an end, I suspect that these meteorological reports allegedly refuting global warming will come to an end. Problem solved: When it is hot, will you believe in Global Warming?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 03:32 PM
94. Oh just kick his butt out of here! Sheesh!
He doesn't add anything to our discussions other than distraction and baiting. When are we going to learn to be tolerant of those who deserve it and to throw out the trash when it starts to stink?

We are no better here at the blog than the impotent Republicans in office! If we continue to (by some misguided sense of bi-partisan duty) be inclusive of those who wish to hijack and disrupt our discussions here - then we are just aiding in our own demise. DM doesn't "deserve" to be here. He found this place and post's for the sole purpose of disruption - not discussion.

Quit it already!

Posted by: Deborah on March 20, 2007 03:36 PM
95. Hello Deborah,

> He found this place and post's for the sole purpose of disruption - not discussion.

This is silly. Discussions can only occur when people with opposing viewpoints are allowed to speak.

If these conversations happen to stray from the narrow focus of the original post that is only because the subject matter is larger & more complicated than it may at first appear.

These subjects are not simple even if you would prefer to handle them in a simplistic manner.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 03:48 PM
96. Stefan: Post 93 is way off topic, and intentionally so.

Good SP policy could be to fry those habitual posters who cannot, and will not, stay on topic.

Since there seems to be no SP thread about the positive aspects of reading goop from drooling global warming idiots, fry DM.......

Posted by: Hank on March 20, 2007 04:00 PM
97. As a case in point take a critical look at #93.

No David I consider it success when I can convince people to look critically at both sides of the issue. I am not out to convince anyone of any thing other than that consensus opinion is antithetical to true scientific inquiry.

As far as anyone conceding that there is "Global Warming" it really is irrelevant unless what one is arguing is that the Earth's temperature, on a global average basis, is rising without bound. I see no evidence for this, in fact the best documented research I have seen points to the earth's recorded temperature as acting in a manner that is cyclic in nature and is currently within the "normal" range. The Earth's temperature on a reported global average basis also corresponds to the sun's cycles of heat output quite closely.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 04:01 PM
98. Opposing viewpoint are heard here. I've been visiting soundpolitics for a couple of years now (maybe longer?), and I have never seen anyone banned for a dissenting viewpoint. That isn't really the issue.

The issue is piggery. When you have someone who doesn't contribute substantially to discussion, but eats up a lot of space, then the threads lose interest to people. Is soundpolitics interested in attracting other commentators, or is it worth losing the contribution of other ideas to feed the ego of one troll?

I like to read dissenting opinions, but not the same "arguments" over and over again. I'm with Deborah. Tolerating the intolerant is not a virtue.

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 04:01 PM
99. He doesn't add anything to our discussions other than distraction and baiting.

All the baiting (supply) keeps you coming back (demand) and bringing in much needed revenue to Stefan & Eric who keep the site going. You need to keep people like Dave & I in order to keep Sound Politics operating in the black. =)

Posted by: Cato on March 20, 2007 04:06 PM
100. Please let David stay.
He is generally polite.
He is often on point....although I disagree with his perspective on pretty much everything.
You can often sense David trying so hard to hold back his seething rage...I'll bet his "BACKSPACE" key is almost warn out from erasing what he REALLY feels about Conservatives & Conservative thinking.

I think it is reasonable to limit EVERYONE to say 10 posts per thread....and possible limit the size of the post FOR EVERYONE.

David is to some of us what Bush is to David. Personally, I have only engage David a few times. It's not worth it to me generally.
Are you having a nice day David??
I'm sure you are grinning that there is actually a thread about YOU and knuckleheads like me are actually posting!! Glad to contribute a small ray of happiness to your otherwise devoid life.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 04:15 PM
101. Mr. Cynical, you are not a knucklehead, but I always figured you always have scraped knuckles from your normal walking gait. LOL.

Cato, is there even that much revenue in 100 posts and x number of visits? Not worth the effort if money was your object. I don't really think that is Stefan's or Eric's intent. Do you? I mean really.

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2007 04:24 PM
102. Cato, you may be often wrong, but you do contribute to the discussion, usually positively. You even have the backbone to apologize when you are wrong.

DM on the other hand, does not stay on topic, writes rambling incoherent posts, and endlessly repeats the same drivel over and over again. I don't mind reading opposing opinions, but DM has raised the art of inane posts to a new level.

I'm with PeggyU and Deborah. After a while DM's posts hijack the comments, and people lose interest. Ban him.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 20, 2007 04:24 PM
103. Hello Mr. Cynical,

> Are you having a nice day David??

Today is an absolutely stunning, beautiful day. Florida has provided an entire week's worth of these days.

> I'm sure you are grinning that there is actually a thread about YOU and knuckleheads like me are actually posting!! Glad to contribute a small ray of happiness to your otherwise devoid life.

My happiness does not derive from this post or any sort of discussion. I have an entirely different source of happiness altogether: I enjoy watching the colors of the sunset filter through the pine trees right outside my window. It is a dramatic and beautiful light show which I have grown to appreciate with each passing day.

I participate in discussions because I have an interest in the subject matter. I seek out viewpoints which differ drastically from my own because such is the most effective technique to gain a true understanding of the full diversity of opinions possessed by humankind.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 04:27 PM
104. swatter---
I just looked down & you are correct...my knuckles are badly scraped & bleeding!

Obi-wan
I really think limiting the number & length of posts for EVERYONE is a good idea. Over at HorsesDerriere, there is a KLOWN, who really thinks he is Roger Rabbit, who generates about 1/3 of all the posts on many threads. And a couple other KLOWNS who generate the rest. KLOWNstein just let's everyone crap in the sandbox and hopes it sorts out.
Frankly, a big part of the problem is when folks endlessly confront David & start sparring with him. If you think David is stupid & a nusance....why would you confront him??????
I find this discussion interesting.
I'll bet you do too, huh David??
Have a nice evening David.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 04:33 PM
105. Today is an absolutely stunning, beautiful day. Florida has provided an entire week's worth of these days.

Today is an absolutely horrible day in Seattle. It's cold, raining and Washington is providing a week's worth of these days. In fact, we want some global warming to happen this week, it being spring and all. So maybe I'll go out and cut down a few trees, buy the biggest carbon producing gas guzzler I can find and turn on the air conditioning even though it's 40 degrees, and say a prayer for global warming to consume the earth so 1) it's warmer here and 2) Florida is completely under the water. Sweet. :=P

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2007 04:35 PM
106. Delete his off topic posts only.

This will:

1. Preserve DM's ability to constructively engage on topics.
2. Keep conversations focused on the intended topic (imrpoving everyone's elses blogging experience)

Like most folks I shudder at the thought of silencing anyone. Requiring them to stay on topic is perfectly reasonable.

The cost is of course someone will need to monitor his posts. But after some period of time we can hope that he will exercise some self control and just engage in meaningful debate, not his current foolishness.

Posted by: Here's an idea on March 20, 2007 04:35 PM
107. Hello David--
Interesting comment:
" I enjoy watching the colors of the sunset filter through the pine trees right outside my window. It is a dramatic and beautiful light show which I have grown to appreciate with each passing day."

I'll bet you would enjoy that sunset much better if the authorities took the damn bars off that window!! LOL!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 04:36 PM
108. David M.

I went back and looked at your many postings on different web sites. Your writings are always the same along with your child like instults. Plus the fact your a troll.
I now see why you've been kicked off.

Maybe you've learned a lession... (yeah right)

Either way, after reading many of what the other posters have said. This thread will be the last time we talk. Your not worth my time or others as I can see.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 04:45 PM
109. Hello Army Medic,

> This thread will be the last time we talk.

Wonderful, Army Medic. I shall not miss you ...

Life goes on, you know.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 04:48 PM
110. I'm surprised to learn that DM does indeed exist, but I celebrate my error, and note that no other post in my limited experience here has garnered such an impressive comment total.

I'm a recent, perhaps illegal immigrant on this blog, but am I allowed to vote on this topic?

I vote YES to keep our own personal Joe Palooka punching bag. It's free and it's indestructable.

The Joe Palooka punching bag was a life size inflatable kids toy with sand in its bottom. Came back at you in a SLIGHTLY different way each time you punched it. A high tech toy in its day. 1956.

Blogs are group therapy. DM is a FREE therapy tool! Confrontational, but not rude. A free devil in the pulpit. What choir wouldn't get some energy from from that?. And it's FREE!

Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 20, 2007 04:51 PM
111. How about banning Phil Spackman, too?

Posted by: Lakewood on March 20, 2007 04:52 PM
112. Hello Palouse,

> In fact, we want some global warming to happen this week, it being spring and all.

Needless to say, this is the classic conservative misunderstanding of Global Warming. You confuse your own local weather with the climate.

Do you want to know how many times conservatives here at SoundPolitics have repeated this argument? Probably a thousand times.

Needless to say, Global Warming is not going to give Seattle Florida's weather. Not now, not ever.

You should at least gain an elementary comprehension of science, Palouse. But that would involve you listening to views that you would rather not hear.

Too bad for you. Too bad for the Republican party, too. Conservatives and science don't seem to mix, do they?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 04:53 PM
113. Not on YOUR understanding Davie. The rest of us, for damn sure. You........LOL

You see davie, were not talking about removing me, it's you sir!

Just like so many other web sites have davie.

Enjoy. (-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 04:54 PM
114. Hello Bart Cannon,

> I vote YES to keep our own personal Joe Palooka punching bag.

By speaking in the above manner you reveal a certain dismal trait of your own character. Maybe all of this pent-up anger expressed by the conservatives here reveals a certain weakness, defensiveness and passive-aggression stemming from their own feelings of powerlessness.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 04:56 PM
115. Bart: The Joe Palooka punching bag was a life size inflatable kids toy with sand in its bottom.

Well, I dare say that David, being from Florida, has sand in its bottom as well. That would have to chafe, and it might explain the lack of a sense of humor!

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 05:03 PM
116. #100. Mr Cynical

Great use of words sir!
_________________________

You said it all about Davie. I can't stop laughing!

Thank you.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 05:05 PM
117. Matthews, if you want to see exhibit A in pent-up anger, do look at the Seattle Answer rally. Yeah, there's a tolerant loving bunch of hempies.

Posted by: PC on March 20, 2007 05:05 PM
118. I want to thank you PeggyU.

Thanks to you I went looking for Davie M on other web sites.
O-my how the web sites popped up. This guy gets around, but he has one small problem.
EVERYONE kicks him off, after a short time.

Do you think it's his IQ????

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 20, 2007 05:09 PM
119. Hello David Matthews:
PC is right...talk about pent up anger being released at those "PEACE RALLY'S"!!!
Why do you suppose pot-smoking (which is supposed to mellow one out), missed the 60's PEACE CRUSADERS are so violent in their words & some in their actions???
Do you think they feel powerless?
OR are they just F'ing around??

I vote the latter.

ANGER HAS NO PLACE AT PEACE RALLY'S DAMMIT!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 05:17 PM
120. The internet is not a democracy. It is controlled anarchy at best.

Whomever pays the bills for the website has the final say on who posts.

Don't like it, go somewhere else or better yet set up your own site.

Posted by: Vince on March 20, 2007 05:25 PM
121. Hello Army Medic,

> Do you think it's his IQ????

I thought that we were not talking. But you keep on speaking.

I think that we are not engaged in a conversation, Army Medic. Your anger might result from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Or perhaps you are a naturally angry sort of person.

In either case, I am not especially concerned about your opinions.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 05:37 PM
122. Wow only seven (7) David Mathews posts! I say he goes and goes fast! He wastes too much of our energy and has not anything new since his first post.

SP is not a government and has no obligation to support the first amendment.

Posted by: deadwood on March 20, 2007 05:37 PM
123. Army M/V: I think we should be honest with ourselves about why we keep David here. It certainly isn't for the intellectual exercise! Bart nailed it. He's an easy target, and he never quits! I think snarking at David is probably somewhat cathartic. But, David gets something out of it too. Where else can he get this much attention? Other people got tired of him after a while. We keep recycling him!

David doesn't really think he's going to convince anyone with his blather. He just likes the sound of his own voice. And we respond where others won't. Do any of the rest of you seriously think Dave has even for a moment actually given consideration to our ideas? Of course you don't! So, since information isn't flowing in either direction, it isn't educational. Therefore it must be nothing but entertainment. Problem is, it's all reruns.

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 05:37 PM
124. Hello PeggyU,

I cannot see myself getting any sort of knowledge from your posts ... you have not displayed any sort of education nor even the curiousity which would compel you to become informed about any subject.

As far as entertainment value goes, the anger of conservatives and their passive-aggressive attacks are not especially valuable from the standpoint of entertainment.

But there is a certain virtue in standing up against the know-nothing conservatism of those who advocate bigotry, perpetual warfare and global pollution. These are intrisic values of conservatism ... aren't they?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 05:43 PM
125. David Matthews brings up good debatable points (though more often than not based on non-facts) on occasion, he changes the subject of what our discussion should be very frequently, thus throwing the whole thread of the post off subject. If he can be responsible and post comments dealing with the thread and try not to be too repetitive I don't have a problem with him. In fact the more views you have looking at a particular problem the better chance that we have of coming up with a good solution.

Give the guy a break it sounds like he's still angry for accidently voting for Bush a few years ago on a confusing Floridian ballot.

Posted by: Doug on March 20, 2007 05:47 PM
126. O.K. notice that in #97 he went away. I left him with the option of accepting and admitting that he is opposed to scietific inquiry and NOTHING else. I won't let him weasle, I won't be suckered into setting up a straw man he can beat to death. If you go back his posts to me will try over and over to get me to concede one of his points which he deliberately leaves open ended. I answer in such a way that he cannot run with it and he either goes away or trys another tack. This is good practice for me in staying NARROWLY on topic. This serves me as it makes me sharpen my argument. He is a useful idiot in that regard.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 05:51 PM
127. David, I doubt you have read any of my posts, unless they were directed to you or had your name in them.

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 06:08 PM
128. Hello JDH,

We could argue about Global warming ... but this is not a Global Warming thread, right?

You say ...

> As far as anyone conceding that there is "Global Warming" it really is irrelevant unless what one is arguing is that the Earth's temperature, on a global average basis, is rising without bound. I see no evidence for this, in fact the best documented research I have seen points to the earth's recorded temperature as acting in a manner that is cyclic in nature and is currently within the "normal" range. The Earth's temperature on a reported global average basis also corresponds to the sun's cycles of heat output quite closely.

What you are saying above is "true" but also irrelevant.

The entire Global Warming debate is not regarding the natural variability of the climate. What is under consideration is the human impact upon the climate, especially the impact of pollution and the eradication of entire ecosystems.

The climate does change naturally, and dramatically so. But humans are making a mess of the Earth and there are consequences.

Well, JDH, what are the consequences of human misbehavior on the Earth?


Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 06:10 PM
129. Just ban conservatives, huh?

Typical Republican attitude.

No wonder you are losing your base.

Posted by: Feliz on March 20, 2007 06:12 PM
130. Hello PeggyU,

> David, I doubt you have read any of my posts ...

Very true, Peggy. I don't make a habit of reading your posts.

Pity, isn't it?

I guess that you aren't as interesting as you imagined.

That's life, Peggy.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 06:12 PM
131. I have been reading SP for a long time. I come here to get information on local issues and read opposing viewpoints on topics of interest to me. There are very few issue sites out there that encourage the expression of differing viewpoints and have the high quality of discussion that SP has had. Until recently.

Lately, the quality of the discussion has declined greatly because of the inane postings by DM. I stopped reading his posts early on because I realized several things:

a) he has the emotional and intellectual maturity of a thirteen-year-old and it has been many many years since I had any interest in a thirteen-year-old's opinion on anything important;

b) if you have read any three or more of his posts, you have literally read everything he has to say at least once;

c) he has substituted dogma for critical thought and people who do that have nothing of interest to say.

I would ban him if it were my site. He has the right to speak out, but he does not have the right to be provided with a platform at someone else's expense.

But I don't blame David alone. Any time there is an article posted about one of his hot button topics, somewhere in the first ten comments, someone will be wondering what DM has to say about this. If you have read any of his posts, do you really wonder? And do you really care? Do you really think there is anything to be gained by debating with a left-wing useful idiot whose only debating skill consists of chanting "four legs good; two legs bad" until his face turns red?

I would ban DM but I would also give one warning to the troll-baiters and on the second offense they would be gone, too. They have lowered the quality of discourse here as much or more than DM.

Posted by: Tired of this topic on March 20, 2007 06:29 PM
132. David: I don't think I ever claimed to be interesting. But then interesting can be overrated! For example: that's an interesting looking growth, there's something interesting in the bottom of the refrigerator, he exhibits some interesting behaviors. May you live in interesting times, David Mathews!

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 06:39 PM
133. Hello Tired of this topic,

Obviously, a person who asserts:

> I stopped reading his posts early on because I realized several things.

Cannot also claim:

> if you have read any three or more of his posts, you have literally read everything he has to say at least once

Needless to say: If you are not listening you cannot possibly know.

You conservatives seem to only want to talk to people who already agree with you. You are not so secure in your dogmas as you suppose. You are positively weak and defensive in your behavior.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 06:43 PM
134. Keep him here. As seldom as I post anymore, he can use some of my space. Oh wait, I too am a guest. Do not have that power. Sorry Dave, just stay on topic and limit your lame crap. Some of your stuff is interesting and more is amusing.

Posted by: chucks on March 20, 2007 06:44 PM
135. Eric, only you would put up a thread about banning someone.

Posted by: thatcher on March 20, 2007 06:46 PM
136. Tired: You are right, of course, and I just proved your point. Lately if soundpolitics threads pertain to the environment or the war, I just avoid them altogether, because I know it's going to be more effort than it's worth to wade through the cookie cutter posts.

Posted by: PeggyU on March 20, 2007 06:50 PM
137. Perhaps we should not be asking if DM should be banned or not. Perhaps we should be asking if DM wants a one way ticket to the country of his liking with a contract in which he agrees never to come back. This guy hates America.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 20, 2007 06:54 PM
138. Hello Peggy,

Would you rather read a bunch of cookie-cutter posts such as, "Pollution is ok! Let's keep on polluting for the economy's sake!" or, "Global Warming is a myth because Seattle is cold! or, "War is good! Muslims are bad! George W. Bush is the best President in American history!"

You people seem to want to hear the same things all of the time when they happen to coincide with your own opinions & prejudices.

That is why a contrary viewpoint is necessary. It is also the same reason why conservatives here take such offense at hearing a contrary view.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 06:57 PM
139. David is a mental necrophilliac.

Posted by: Walters on March 20, 2007 07:16 PM
140. Hello David Matthews:
You never responded to my post #119 (see below):

"PC is right...talk about pent up anger being released at those "PEACE RALLY'S"!!!
Why do you suppose pot-smoking (which is supposed to mellow one out), missed the 60's PEACE CRUSADERS are so violent in their words & some in their actions???
Do you think they feel powerless?
OR are they just F'ing around??

I vote the latter.

ANGER HAS NO PLACE AT PEACE RALLY'S DAMMIT!!!!!!!!"

One other thought I had about dispersing these angry, hostile Peace Frauds who violate the right of others while F'ing around-----
Throw a bar of soap in the crowd!
Or scream "THERE'S AN UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD INVESTIGATOR IN OUR MIDST!!!"

I guess that might cause a stampede, huh David Matthews??
Have a nice evening David.
One....one last tip:
David Matthews, did you realize that smoking BC Bud while taking Prozac can lead to early Alzheimer's. Be careful David. It seems from the redundancy of most of your posts this may be your problem.
Your mind is a terrible thing to waste David.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 07:30 PM
141. Hello Mr. Cynical,

I fear that the above post was the best that you could do. Your weapons are astonishingly weak.

Those people at the peace rally will eventually get their way. It may take several years but ultimately America is going to leave Iraq. We might leave in an honorable or dishonorable fashion, but certainly America will leave Iraq.

And the Iraqis will be happy to see America go. And they will wish for America to never come back. They never asked for out help in the first place. They have suffered and died needlessly for the sake of George W. Bush's ego and bloodlust.

But all of these things are coming to an end.

You are on the losing side of this battle, Mr. Cynical. The peace activists should know that they are going to win. Their victory is guaranteed.

Mr. Cynical, your war is already lost. Too bad for you & your cause & the Republican party.

George W. Bush has made a terrible mess in the Middle East. He has spilled a lot of blood. He has killed more civilians than Osama Bin Laden.

I wonder how history is going to treat his memory?

Don't you see, Mr. Cynical, you are on the losing side of this argument. But pity the poor Iraqis who are dying by the thousands for nothing.

You are angry, Mr. Cynical, only because you are losing. Isn't it a pity?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 07:42 PM
142. And to hell with the Iraqis who died by the hundreds of thousands while the US sang Kumbaya to Saddam.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 20, 2007 07:45 PM
143. Hello Insufficiently Sensitive,

You are mistaken: The United States of America was an ally of Saddam while he was killing his own citizens and Iranians by the hundred thousand. America approved (or at least consented) to Saddam murdering all of these people.

Saddam Hussein was America's ally while he was committing acts of genocide. Saddam Hussein did not attain evil status until he threatened Saudi Arabia's oil.

This is a very important point which is often forgotten by conservatives and warmongering patriots.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 07:56 PM
144. A reasonable profile of DM, who likely adopted the pseudonym in honor of The Dave Matthews Band and Hardball's Chris Mathews:

Single male
Thirty-something
Telemarketer or postal worker
Overweight
Possibly physically disabled
Former Christian
Possibly abused as a child
Obsessive compulsive
Passive aggressive
Anti-social
Had a thing for Katherine Harris

Hollywood has featured this profile numerous times:

Seinfeld's Neuman
Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle
Lord of the Rings' Gollum

Posted by: Organization Man on March 20, 2007 08:04 PM
145. Hello Organization Man,

What is most evident by your post is that ...

You don't know me

But it is rather humorous if also a bit pathetic.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 08:09 PM
146. Interesting sttuff.
I say let him stay. If you don't like his slant on things, skip the post.

David. Joseph Stalin was our ally while we beat back Germany and its lunatic leadership in the 40's. I dare say we needed his army at that time.

I don't think we would have been blamed for taking him out after the iron curtain was built and the slaughter of non communists and dessenter began.
Here's to free speech and as well to the right to any groups freedom of association should you get the boot.

Posted by: Jim L on March 20, 2007 08:17 PM
147. Not only can DM take a joke, he seems to be a good joke. I hope all the old people he's around in Florida will use great patience and educate him a bit.

Posted by: PC on March 20, 2007 08:18 PM
148. You are mistaken: The United States of America was an ally of Saddam while he was killing his own citizens and Iranians by the hundred thousand. America approved (or at least consented) to Saddam murdering all of these people.


Saddam Hussein was America's ally while he was committing acts of genocide. Saddam Hussein did not attain evil status until he threatened Saudi Arabia's oil.



That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Do you actually believe this??!?!?!


By this logic, did our support of Soviet Russia during WW2 implicate us in all the crimes of the USSR?

Posted by: Cliff on March 20, 2007 08:19 PM
149. Hello Cliff,

> By this logic, did our support of Soviet Russia during WW2 implicate us in all the crimes of the USSR?

There is a rather substantial difference between America's alliance with an enemy during World War II and America's support of Saddam Hussein while he was killing Iraqis & Iranians by the hundred thousand.

Do I need to spell this out, Cliff?

America and Britian gave Saddam the tools for killing all those people. America and Britain winked while Saddam was busy killing so many. America and Britain actively supported Saddam's WMD program throughout this period.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 08:27 PM
150. Okay, I changed my mind. Ban DM. He succeeds in hi-jacking threads and making them devolve into babble. Nothing constructive here or in any other thread in which he participates. Enough is enough. Besides that, he seems to be just begging to be banned.

Posted by: katomar on March 20, 2007 08:33 PM
151. "What is under consideration is the human impact upon the climate, especially the impact of pollution and the eradication of entire ecosystems."

A point you have not made yet want me to concede based upon political consenses. I say "show me the evidence." You say "any contrary evidence does not fit the conclusion and is therefore not to be considered. There is a conclusion, the question is settled to my satisfaction and that should be enough for you to change your lifestyle drastically." I say "no this question a has an afect on hundreds of millions of people, therefore, no dice. Let's look into the case against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming." Not only has one side been shut off, the other side's methodology is proven to be suspect (at best). What I say is "I am not convinced, but favor the case against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming at this juncture and this is based upon the best evidence avaliable."

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 08:34 PM
152. This is my first introduction to Mr. Matthews. Excuse me if I don't read all 150 of these posts too closely, but what are the extreme views on global warming and the war on terror? The pacificism's obviously over the top, but the other points seem rather obvious.

Posted by: Nancy on March 20, 2007 08:37 PM
153. Hello JDH,

Do you have any opinion whatsoever regarding the impact of pollution and eradicating ecosystems upon the Earth's climate?

I've got to tell you ... this behavior doesn't appear healthy to me. Profitable, yes, but also reckless and potentially suicidal.

Would you care to present the alternative view on this matter?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 08:39 PM
154. Dave Mathews' tangential posts are the literary equivalent of masturbating in public. The guy is simply a self-indulgent nutball who does what he does here purely to get himself off at our expense.

I say keep him. It's important to be reminded of how intellectually bankrupt liberals are. Dave is a shining example.

Posted by: ERNurse on March 20, 2007 08:40 PM
155. I admit I didn't read through all 150 votes/posts, but I am strangely convinced that David is a right-winger posing as a deranged leftist. Now when I read his posts, they are hilarious satire. Sort of like Scrappleface, except occasionally even more clever. I vote to let him stay, but since I only visit Sound Politics once in awhile, my vote should count very little.

Posted by: Elaine on March 20, 2007 08:45 PM
156. Shure do, based upon the available evidence capitalist economies have a track record of being cleaner environmentally and provide a better and longer life for humans. Mitigating against KNOWN polutants is prudent, mitigating against conjecture is not.

Posted by: JDH on March 20, 2007 08:45 PM
157. Hello ERNurse,

> Dave Mathews' tangential posts are the literary equivalent of masturbating in public.

I can see this conversation ain't beginning so well ...

> It's important to be reminded of how intellectually bankrupt liberals are.

I suppose that the first sentence is a pretty fair representation of the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatives.

Conservatism is in bad shape if Seattle provides a representative sample of the movement ...

Posted by: David Mathews on March 20, 2007 08:46 PM
158. I'd say let Mathews post. I've sparred with him several times and still haven't got to the bottom of his hatred of man and his fear of the future.

Generally with Mathews what you see is what you get. There are no layers of obfuscation you have to peel back one by one. He hates Americans. He thinks we're obese, stupid, selfish and despoiling nature though, as an exception to the rule, he clams up when asked why North Korea should not be his paradise.

Let the dissection continue.

Posted by: Bill K. on March 20, 2007 08:57 PM
159. ban him.

he's an intellectual midget and does nothing for the level or incisiveness of the discourse. we all know what he's going to say before he even says it. i'm up for a laugh at someone else's expense as much as the next guy but after a while, it just becomes tiresome. this guy's "insights" are as tired as a (insert off-color prostitute joke here...). I can certainly appreciate the "we need to listen to the other side" point. I do it on a regular basis being an artist and musician. For me, its about ideas. DM has contributed nothing constructive...nothing new. he has done a fine job of reciting what he reads. its the comprehension and internalization that he lacks.

I certainly don't want to ban someone based on lack of intellect, but i greatly appreciate this blog and what it provides for northwest conservatives. DM provides nothing constructive on which to build an argument, platform, notion, feeling, whim or anything else positive. we've all heard his tripe before. the only thing i feel for the quality of his input is pity. i'd like to come away from my daily readings with more than that.

again...ban him for dragging down the discourse...not for his positions. if he had anything insightful, i'd gladly welcome his posts.

Posted by: k2 on March 20, 2007 09:03 PM
160. And now I can look forward to my "Hello Elaine, I can assure you that this is not satire" post tomorrow. David will remind us that we are soon to all be dead or deserve to be dead in the future. Predictability is a reliable part of humor.

Posted by: Elaine on March 20, 2007 09:05 PM
161. Bill @ 158

Maybe he is Osama Bin Ladin posting as David Mathews?????

Posted by: Chris on March 20, 2007 09:09 PM
162. Wow! Most comments I've ever seen here in such a short amount of time.

Davey's said a lot here today, but nothing really about the topic: Should he be Banned? If not, why not?

I say no to banning. After all, the other commenters here might be the closest thing he has to friends.

Posted by: starboardhelm on March 20, 2007 09:31 PM
163. Hello David Matthews--
David said--
"Those people at the peace rally will eventually get their way. It may take several years but ultimately America is going to leave Iraq. We might leave in an honorable or dishonorable fashion, but certainly America will leave Iraq."

I have no argument with the fact that America will eventually leave Iraq. Nor do I argue that it will be honorably or dishonorably (is there a 3rd choice?????). I do disagree that the people at that peace rally will eventually get their way however. I believe most of them want America to fail & crumble. They hate this Country and you know why David Matthews?????????
CUZ!!!

I find your nebullous statements amusing David.
Are you getting sleepy?

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 20, 2007 09:31 PM
164. All DM does is paraphrase and repeat himself ad nauseum. It would be one thing if he did offer differing opinions on a given topic, but it is quite clear he will always blame everything on global warming and civilization. He's even done that on this thread, so it is time to make him an ex-parrot. For those who want to keep him around for "entertainment" value, start a separate public blog.

Posted by: Burdabee on March 20, 2007 09:51 PM
165. Does anyone else just notice the boldfaced quote from a previous message and skip over the next 62 lines of text to see the signature line, "Posted by David Mathews? I, for one, have better things to do than read the demented rantings of someone wearing this white suit, in front of this computer.

Perhaps DM is some sort of an automotronic random-screed-generating-blog-bot hosted on a super computer system in Al Gore's basement. With the sheer number of his posts on SP, no wonder Gore's mansion consumes 221,000 kwh a year.

Limit the number of posts in a day to 10 and DM will have more time to enjoy our country instead of hating it.

Posted by: Yadda Cubed on March 20, 2007 10:04 PM
166. Here's DM's white suit.

Posted by: Yadda Cubed on March 20, 2007 10:10 PM
167. Just out of curiosity, would the NY Times editorial board fare any better than Mr. Matthews?

Posted by: Nancy on March 20, 2007 10:13 PM
168. Third try, different link: Here's DM's white suit.

Posted by: Yadda Cubed on March 20, 2007 10:14 PM
169. Nancy: Probably, because there would be some variety in the writing, and they wouldn't post as often. David could double as a spambot.

Posted by: Peggy U on March 20, 2007 10:31 PM
170. Chris Mathews boy David should go!

Posted by: HW on March 20, 2007 10:39 PM
171. Well! Now that we've all got that out of our system....
(Only to prove that conservatives are as foolish with their sympathy as the liberals who walk the Central District at night "to feel the druggies pain"......

Now I can see why McKay, and the Republicans in DC chose not to investigate the 2004 elections...They knew they might have (gasp!) offended the Democrat criminals!

We conservatives know that we must allow these people the right to disrupt our blogs and rob our elections, corrupt our children and re-write history....because it's the "fair" thing to do.....we don't want to be known as heavy handed or (G-d forbid..) partisan! (Because we all know how fair, giving and openminded those liberal posters are...)

It's ok..I have a feeling that the joke is on all of us. It's becoming more obvious everyday that this Ying/yang war that makes up the 2 party system is engineered and orchestrated. Just look at how successful it is! We just wasted an entire day beating up a troll! Over 150 post's!

What important issue did we miss today? How many "real" issues are we distracted from with this game every day?

Posted by: Deborah on March 20, 2007 11:07 PM
172.
There is a rather substantial difference between America's alliance with an enemy during World War II and America's support of Saddam Hussein while he was killing Iraqis & Iranians by the hundred thousand.


Yes, there is a difference. Stalin was killing Russians by the MILLIONS, not the hundreds of thousands. He was also killing Germans, Pols, Yugoslavians, etc. Matter of fact, famously, when he was asked how his country would recover from the mass destruction of WW2 that left millions of his countrymen dead, he merely shrugged and said, "I've killed that many."


Do I need to spell this out, Cliff?


Spell out that your position is obviously illogical?


America and Britian gave Saddam the tools for killing all those people. America and Britain winked while Saddam was busy killing so many. America and Britain actively supported Saddam's WMD program throughout this period.


Even if you are right, which you are only half right while painting a badly distorted picture of what was really happening, it STILL wouldn't be as bad as allying with Stalin, whom we supplied with everything we could during WW2.


I have no problem with you saying both supporting Stalin in WW2 and supporting Saddam during Iran/Iraq are wrong. I might disagree, but it's a logically consistent position.


However, saying we were right to support Stalin during WW2 and somehow not only wrong to support Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war, but henceforth morally responsible for everything Iraq did wrong, is not only logically inconsistent, it's braindead and morally bankrupt.

Posted by: Cliff on March 21, 2007 03:26 AM
173. Hello Mr. Cynical,

> is there a 3rd choice?????

Yes, there is a third choice: The United States of America could spend the next several decades involved in perpetual warfare.

That's what those at the peace rally are seeking to avoid.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 04:49 AM
174. Hello Cliff,

> However, saying we were right to support Stalin during WW2 and somehow not only wrong to support Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war, but henceforth morally responsible for everything Iraq did wrong, is not only logically inconsistent, it's braindead and morally bankrupt.

Cliff, I find it astonishing that you seem to have forgotten the entire context of America's alliance with Stalin during World War II. You know ... Hitler & all that.

Saddam Hussein is not an analogous situation. Saddam was an unsavory person who was America's ally. Saddam's power to kill was derived in large measure from the support provided by the West. America did not explicitly object to Saddam's genocide and warfare until these threatened Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 05:00 AM
175. Hello Everyone,

I encourage all the read the editorial by Derrick Z. Jackson,

What American Sacrifice?"

Where he says, among other things:

"Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the false-pretense Iraq war, the American way of life was already a global symbol of gluttony. If anything, the post-9/11 period has resulted in even more hoarding. In 2000, the size of the average American home was 2,266 square feet. Now it is 2,434 square feet, according to Census data, with the highest regional average right here in the Northeast at 2,556 square feet."

and ...

"This does not even get into SUVs, which need no introduction. It all adds up to a nation that was sucking a quarter of the world's energy and spewing out a quarter of its global warming gases with only 5 percent of the planet's population. We consume more oil than all of the European Union or as much as China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and India combined. But the hot news is not a federal plan to curb our addictions. It is 50-inch high-definition televisions and shootings, muggings and stampedes last November for the new Sony PlayStation 3."

I agree. When will America wake up?

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 05:53 AM
176. I woke up this morning to read the latest posts and discovered that once again an article was commandeered by one individual and supported by his loyal legions who pretend to egg him on, but in reality, have a "thing" for him.

Personally, Eric, I find the intellectual content on SP unchallenging on the DM posts and counter posts by SP commenters. Too early to say goodby, but DM is monopolizing your site.

Posted by: swatter on March 21, 2007 07:20 AM
177. So "swatter" We now agree that DM needs to go?
By chance did you do to the web sites that Peggy U had given us.
You think David is a hog here. WOW
Plus he's been kicked off of their sites for the same reason we are talking about here.

Have a great morning.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2007 07:31 AM
178. Isn't it ironic that liberals are afraid "we are all gonna die" because of three degrees change because of global warming, yet they are the first to protect the "right" of women to kill their unborn babies and keep government away from a court decision to murder Terri Schiavo. Oh, and don't forget, they are also opposed to "capital punishment" as being inhuman.
Interesting eh?

Posted by: anony on March 21, 2007 08:03 AM
179. It's still cold here. Maybe I didn't chop down enough trees yesterday. Today, I think I'll pave over some wetlands for fun, after I buy another Humvie. There's got to be something to this anthropological thingy I keep hearing about. I'll keep spewing carbon until it gets warmer. TTFN.

Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2007 08:27 AM
180. I'd like to see more background on this Matthews character publicized to the audience. He loves to bloviate and quite often has no substance or facts to back up his opinions. He is intellectually dishonest with too much time on his hands. When called on it, he backs off for the moment, only to start right in again usually by the next post. His comments should be screened periodically, as everyone else's supposedly are and rejected if there is too much dishonesty of significance to mislead readers (to be determined by the blogger).

If there were a truth detector, virtually all of his comments would be spat back at him for revision, IMHO.

Posted by: KS on March 21, 2007 08:48 AM
181. Well, don't goad him on. My word, between you, JD, and WV, you allow that guy legs to stand on. Ignore him and that takes away his soapbox. He will go away.

Actually, I agree with Eric's decision, except if it continues, I will vote with my typepad.

Posted by: swatter on March 21, 2007 08:50 AM
182. Well I think a warning is sufficient at this point. He does tend to think that the volume of posts wins the argument rather than the intellectual content of the argument.

Unlike liberals, we don't censor people here at SP.

Posted by: pbj on March 21, 2007 09:11 AM
183. Hey SP, how about starting a post on this latest report on Reichert's support for John McKay and let us start discussing something other than this loser from Florida who is being allowed to take over this blog? Talking about this other loser testifying in DC today is just as pointless.

I for one would like to read how SP readers, especially Republicans, feel about our congressman who appears to support McKay's handling of the 2004 debacle and appears to be siding with him against the administration and leader of the Republican Party.

Posted by: MJC on March 21, 2007 10:09 AM
184. Eric-

Never mind. Mathews just proved your point for you. Zot him.

Posted by: ERNurse on March 21, 2007 10:47 AM
185. #144 DM description:


Single mother aka bastard

If product of marriage father wised up and left or killed himself

Never invited to birthday parties as child

Last picked for anything if picked at all as child

Always told "Don't cry Davey, you're better than them."

Developed last word complex at early age

Professed animal lover because pet cat was only
perceived friend as child

Professed "at one with nature" and communing with
nature actually trips to zoo and animal shelter on days off

Uses bus pass. Prides self in knowing all routes. Sits in solitude and silence
passing judgment on other bus riders.

Holds college degree however never
able to hold professional job
due to insecurities and arrogance

Employed as stock room attendant (works alone)

Hates women. Has documented these
deep, angry feelings on this board
by chastising women's names
and making prejudicial comments
about women's physical
appearance in his responses.

Believes terrorists read his posts so
they won't chop his head off
if opportunity arises

Has no interpersonal skills

Only interaction with others is via internet

Almost all of free time is spent
scouring message boards

Hollywood portrays persona as:

Guy who owns comic book store on Simpsons

Stuart on Mad TV

Gary Busey's character Tom Sykes
in movie Hider in the House

Michael Keaton's character Carter Hayes
in movie Pacific Heights

Truman Capote's self-portrayal in
A Christmas Memory

Can't wait to clock-off
at work today, ride bus
home, and enter cyber world
so he can excerise some sort
of perceived self-worth
and perceived control over others

Posted by: Barbara Anne on March 21, 2007 10:55 AM
186. Cliff, I find it astonishing that you seem to have forgotten the entire context of America's alliance with Stalin during World War II. You know ... Hitler & all that.


Dave, I find it astonishing that you seem to have forgotten the entire context of America's aid to Saddam during Iran/Iraq. You know...The Ayatollah, hostage crisis and all that.


I could flesh it out more if I wanted, there's so much more completely obvious context to this that you completely miss, it's clear to me you don't really know much about international politics, you merely parrot what you hear on the Daily Kos.

Posted by: Cliff on March 21, 2007 11:32 AM
187. The ONLY reason I have engaged David Matthews here is because this thread is about HIM!
I have no intention of engaging him anywhere else because he is redundant. I would encourage others to do the same. But don't ban him! I think David is just like the suicide bombers who believe in the glory of becoming a Maryr.

Limit # of Posts per Thread & Limit Length of Post. That won't make David go away. But it will make the Thread more readable....and not create a martyr.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 21, 2007 12:05 PM
188. Here is a very good editorial which lays out the case against teh very idiocy DM tends to endorse.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21423840-7583,00.html

The peace of the dead
Cheerleading for American defeat will only hurt innocents

ONE of the more disturbing aspects of the fourth anniversary of the formal invasion of Iraq is the way in which the milestone was appropriated by those who, in their dislike of the US and its president, hope to see American troops forced out of that country with their tail between their legs - nevermind the consequences for the Iraqi people. .....

Posted by: JDH on March 21, 2007 01:52 PM
189. Hello Barbara Anne,

I can see that you put a lot of thought in that post. It is a virtue for conservatives to think.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 03:05 PM
190. Hello Cliff,

> I find it astonishing that you seem to have forgotten the entire context of America's aid to Saddam during Iran/Iraq. You know...The Ayatollah, hostage crisis and all that.

I am well aware of that context, Cliff. America was an ally of Saddam Hussein and supported him throughout his reign of terror and war against Iran. America didn't mind so much Saddam Hussein killing his own people at that time, and America was especially eager to support Saddam's bloody war against Iran.

Saddam would still remain in power (and America's ally) today if he confined his violence to his own people & Iranians. The sin which killed Saddam Hussein was his threat against Saudi Arabia's oil.

Americans don't mind when Muslims kill Muslims. Americans are interested in the Middle East because of oil and for no other reason.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 03:11 PM
191. Saddam would still remain in power (and America's ally) today if he confined his violence to his own people & Iranians.

There's some truth to that. We are generally okay as long as you are killing your own people. When you kill people next door, then it's a problem.

The sin which killed Saddam Hussein was his threat against Saudi Arabia's oil.

Actually, it was that little invasion thingy he did with Kuwait, who is one of our allies.

Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2007 03:29 PM
192. Hello Palouse,

You do agree with me, don't you?

1. America supported Saddam Hussein while he was committing genocide against his own people.

2. America supported Iraq's military aggression against its neighbor, Iran.

3. Saddam's great sin was invading Kuwait and threatening to seize Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

therefore ...

4. Americans care more about oil than about Muslim blood.

and one more point ...

5. Americans love their SUVs more than they love our own soldiers who are dying right now for oil's sake.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 21, 2007 03:44 PM
193. I agree with some of that, but not the conclusions you are drawing from them. Saddam invaded a neighboring country who is one of our allies. We would have gotten involved regardless of whether Kuwait had oil. There's no oil in Kosovo but we got involved in that war (to save Muslim lives by the way). Same with Somalia. If we only cared about oil rather than "Muslim blood", there's no way we would have been involved in Kosovo or Somalia.

We did support Saddam in his war with Iran, only because he was the lesser of two evils, not because we liked the guy. You are correct in that if he had just left it at that following that war and just killed his own people, he probably would be alive and in power today. He made a bad decision invading Kuwait.

Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2007 04:00 PM
194. Dave,

I'm having a real hard time figuring out if you are as stupid as you seem to be, or if you do it just to annoy people. Which is it?

Anyhow, one last time:


I am well aware of that context, Cliff. America was an ally of Saddam Hussein and supported him throughout his reign of terror and war against Iran.


"Ally' is a loaded term. We backed him to a certain degree to keep Ayatollah from dominating the region, in the context of the cold war, true. So what?


America didn't mind so much Saddam Hussein killing his own people at that time, and America was especially eager to support Saddam's bloody war against Iran.


OK, so we should have 'pre-emptively' invaded Iraq to stop this bloodshed? That's what you are arguing for.


Actually, all things being equal, I might actually agree with this. However, in the context of the cold war, such a move was impossible, and only someone ignorant of international politics and history would disagree with that.



Saddam would still remain in power (and America's ally) today if he confined his violence to his own people & Iranians. The sin which killed Saddam Hussein was his threat against Saudi Arabia's oil.


Yes, it is true, we consider it bad when a homicidal, anti-semetic, terrorist supporting maniac would have the ability to control 1/3rd of the word's oil. This is wrong how?


That said, you are wrong anyway. Saddam's ability for aggression against Saudi Arabia was ended in '91 and nothing had changed since then. He CERTAINLY wasn't a threat as long as we had troops in Saudi Arabia, which we did until after Saddam had fallen.


Americans don't mind when Muslims kill Muslims. Americans are interested in the Middle East because of oil and for no other reason.


OK, so you hate Americans. Good for you. Why don't you join the terrorists?


Again, you are wrong anyway, and I can prove it with one word: K-O-S-O-V-O.

Posted by: Cliff on March 21, 2007 04:31 PM
195. swatter 176--you convinced me seeing 196 posts. time to ban.

kids are allowed a few chances & latitude in behavior and then the boom comes down. even your favorite candy can make you sick in excess amounts.

posting is one thing. comandeering is another--it borders on abuse and agression. it's first about reasonable behavior, then the REASONABLE exchange of different ideas. not airdrop leafletting the entire area to 3 inches thick of paper. (wonder what his school term papers looked like? freakin' War & Peace?)

DM--perhaps you are your own worst enemy--ta ta!

ps--note the conservative tendency above to allow him to spurt--but--try this as a conservative at Evergreen State College in WA or any campus these days--double standard.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 21, 2007 08:44 PM
196. Boot the wise guy, he really spews crap!
Just look at the recent global warming post!!
Look what he has done to a good thing!!!

Posted by: HW on March 21, 2007 10:00 PM
197. Ban him. He's a troll and a thread crapper. He does not add a point of view. Others represent his point of view respectfully and usefully. He detracts from discussions. It is not enough to say don't feed the trolls in a group this large. Trolls will always get responses in this kind of environment.

Hairy

Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 21, 2007 10:13 PM
198. David Mathews,

Enough with the insults. Enough with trying to digress off onto Islam and other topics way off thread. This is a warning from the guy who can delete posts.

Posted by: Randall Parker on February 19, 2007 10:11 PM
I've ended the exchange between E-P, Bob, and David Mathews. Just deleted several posts.

Posted by: Randall Parker on February 20, 2007 07:01 PM
FYI: Dave Mathews has been banned from The Oil Drum. The sudden lack of trolling was immediately obvious, and later the staff confirmed it.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet on February 20, 2007 07:55 PM

Posted by: HW on March 21, 2007 11:38 PM
199. And so I come to the web this morning to see discussion of the AlGore sermon yesterday and see that even that thread was hijacked.

Either I won't be reviewing GW or other pet subjects or the guy has to go. It also seems some posters are as lonely as DM and have a need to carry on personal conversations with him. I haven't seen any ask for a date yet, but I am expecting them to at any time. Maybe they can get a room?

Posted by: swatter on March 22, 2007 07:26 AM
200. Nothing to see here....just amazed this turned into 200 posts. Alright, time to move along...

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2007 08:04 AM
201. It is spring now and is the time to ban David Mathews of Florida? He has been banned from other sites for trolling and consistently is off subject and attacks others with private conversations. March 22, 2007 is a great time to end this intervention.

I have tried to ignore him hoping he would go away!
It is past time! Act now! Anyone feel the same?

Respectfully,
Retired Snohomish county resident

Posted by: HW on March 22, 2007 09:08 AM
202. HW..

Well I'm not retired yet, but I for one have had enough of this fool. (Good by David)

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 22, 2007 01:12 PM
203. Hello Everyone,

I spent today outside in Safety Harbor, Clearwater and Seminole. Saw six (6!) alligators today. Visited the oldest living thing in Pinellas County -- a 300 - 500 year old oak tree in Safety Harbor -- very beautiful and very profound from the standpoint of time.

Of course, the trees that I visited in California were 1500 - 2000 years old. They have no natural enemies -- except for humankind. Humans have a tendency to destroy everything. All those natural things which have endured until today are true survivors but there isn't any guarantee that they will continue to survive for another millennium.

Why is it that humans hate & destroy every living thing. Humans love asphalt more than Nature itself. Too bad that Nature serves to keep us alive while asphalt is a horrendous blight of pollution upon the (formerly living) ground.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 03:30 PM
204. Dave,


Given your dislike for humanity, The Bloodhound Gang has a suggestion for you:

Cause life is a game that no one wins
But you deserve a headstart the way your life's goin'
So throw in the towel cause your life ain't shit
No take that towel and hang yourself with it
Life's short and hard like a body-building elf
So save the planet and kill yourself
If you're feeling down-and-out with what your life's all about
Lift your head up and blow your brains out
Lift your head up high and blow your brains out
Lift your head up high and blow your brains out
Lift your head up high and blow your brains out

- Lyrics to "Lift Your Head Up High" by The Bloodhound Gang

http://www.geocities.com/bloodhoundganglyrics/beer_lyrics/lift_your_head.html

Posted by: Cliff on March 22, 2007 07:03 PM
205. Hello Cliff,

I love humankind and I love Nature. But I hate the crime which humankind is presently committing against Nature and all future generations of humankind.

As to the question of suicide: Humankind is committing suicide.

Our species is following the suggestions of the song's lyrics very well. In all of the history of life upon the Earth no other species has ever worked so hard to bring about its own demise.

Destroying the Earth, depleting the world's resources, polluting the entire globe ... these are not the behaviors of an animal that intends to survive forever. Humans are trashing the Earth today because the species senses that it won't exist for very much longer so it really doesn't make any difference.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 22, 2007 07:29 PM
206. Dave Mathead, you wrote: "It is a virtue for conservatives to think."

Given the nebulous vapidity of your prolific literary masturbatory sessions, what is virtuous of conservatives, as you say, is for liberals such as yourself a liability.

Get a job.

Posted by: ERNurse on March 23, 2007 04:25 AM
207. Hello ERNurse,

It is not unusual for conservatives to take offense at a person thinking.

Conservatives would prefer to not think. Americans are called mindless consumers for a reason.

Posted by: David Mathews on March 23, 2007 04:30 AM
208. See, there you go again, Davey-boy. Making sweeping generalizations.

You are the classic liberal bigot. The back of my hand to you.

Posted by: ERNurse on March 23, 2007 11:53 PM
209. jeez--208 posts on DM.

time for the virulent TB isolation sanitarium. encapsulate--now. he's an ebola blogger.

public posting safety first--scientific curiosity later.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 25, 2007 01:52 PM
210. Stefan,

I think you're doing great work! I find that I check your website multiple times each week because it's loaded with pert content, and perhaps more importantly, quite educational (though I don't always agree with you).

All the best & good luck,
Carvajal

You may enjoy this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Posted by: Carvajal on March 27, 2007 05:36 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?