Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 21,901 through 21,930 (of 47,660 total)
1 2 3 … 730 731 732 … 1,587 1,588 1,589
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 9, 2020 at 10:23 pm in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112099
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 7:19 pm in reply to: just some “no thread for em” various political tweets … 2/25 thru ? #112097
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 7:12 pm in reply to: the “Bernie’s people dominate negative tweets” myth #112096
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    There is hard data that shows “Bernie Bros” are a myth
    A computational social scientist’s study shows Bernie’s Twitter followers act pretty much the same as everyone else

    https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/

    Mainstream pundits and politicians continue to obsess over the stereotype of the “Bernie Bro,” a perfervid horde of Bernie Sanders supporters who supposedly stop at nothing to harass his opponents online. Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens have all helped perpetuate the idea that Sanders’ supporters are somehow uniquely cruel, despite Sanders’ platform and policy proposal being the most humane of all the candidates.

    The only problem? The evidence that Sanders supporters are uniquely cruel online, compared to any other candidates’ supporters, is scant; much of the discourse around Bernie Bros seems to rely on skewed anecdotes that don’t stand up to scrutiny. Many Sanders supporters suspect that the stereotype is perpetuated in bad faith to help torpedo his candidacy.

    A few weeks ago I penned a story for Salon attempting to qualitatively disprove the Bernie Bro myth by pulling from psychological theory and the nature of online behavior. To summarize my conclusions: First, there is a general tendency for online behavior to be negative, known as the online disinhibition effect — but it affects all people equally, not merely Sanders’ supporters. Second, pundits systematically ignore when other candidates’ supporters are mean online, perhaps because of the aforementioned established stereotype; in this sense, the Bernie Bro is not dissimilar from other political canards like the “welfare queen.” Third, Twitter is not a representative sample size of the population, and is so prone to harboring propaganda outfits and bots such that it is not a reliable way of gauging public opinion.

    Now, to add to this qualitative assessment, there is quantitative evidence, too — reaped from studying hundreds of thousands of interactions online — that reveals the Bernie Bro myth as, well, a myth. Jeff Winchell, a computational social scientist and graduate student at Harvard University, crunched the numbers on tweet data and found that Sanders’ supporters online behave the same as everyone else. Winchell used what is called a sentiment analysis, a technique used both in the digital humanities and in e-commerce, to gauge emotional intent from social media data.

    “Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other follower,” Winchell says of his results. “There is one key difference that Twitter users and media don’t seem to be aware of…. Bernie has a lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat’s campaigns,” he added, noting that this may be partly what helps perpetuate the myth.

    I interviewed him about his work and his results over email; as usual, this interview has been condensed and edited for print.

    First, for those who haven’t heard of this technique, what is a sentiment analysis?

    Sentiment analysis summarizes human expression into various scores. Most commonly the score is how negative or positive it is. But it can also be used to evaluate subjectivity (for instance, is a politician’s statement factual or mostly opinionated?). Even taking the simpler text analysis, there are multiple challenges due to sarcasm, negations (e.g “I don’t like their service”, “After what he did, this will be his last project”), ambiguity (words that are negative or positive depending on their context), and [the fact that] texts can contain both positive and negative parts.

    How are sentiment analyses used? What are other examples of this technique being used?

    The overwhelming application of sentiment analysis is in e-commerce (for instance, scoring how positive/negative customer feedback is). Customer service surveys are often analyzed this way. Marketing uses sentiment analysis to test product acceptance.

    Other commercial applications are in recommendations. While a system may have the user given an overall rating, analyzing the comments they provide can identify the sentiment on subtopics within.

    So tell me about the sentiment analysis script that you wrote to study online behavior among different politicians’ followers. How did this work?

    I downloaded all the followers of the Twitter accounts of the nine most popular Democratic presidential candidates and the president ([around] 100 million Twitter accounts). I then randomly chose followers from them and downloaded all their tweets from 2015 to the present.

    I have run two different sentiment analysis algorithms on these tweets. So far, nearly 6.8 million tweets from 280,000 Twitter accounts have been analyzed out of the 100 million-plus tweets I currently have downloaded (I continue downloading more).

    One sentiment analysis algorithm uses a well-regarded example of grammar/word dictionary sentiment rules that were popular 5 to 10 years ago before deep learning became popular. This one is identified by the Python libary’s name, Textblob.

    The other algorithm is Microsoft’s supervised deep learning-based algorithm with default parameters. To those unfamiliar with deep learning, the number of parameters in this model is in the millions, and no human can be expected to understand them. The deep learning model learns/generalizes from examples of text given sentiment ratings by humans through millions of trials, each time evaluating how well it predicts the results and passing that model and accuracy to the next iteration.

    The categories of negative and very negative are based on ranges of values in the two algorithm’s outputs. Textblob generates a number from most negative (-1) to most positive (+1). I classified scores of [below] -0.75 as very negative and -.75 to -.5 as negative. Microsoft’s algorithm predicts the chance that some text is classified as positive. Based on the frequencies of a specific chance, I separated the lowest 1.5 percent of tweet ratings as very negative and the lowest 1.5 percent to 5 percent of all tweet ratings as negative.

    What did your results find?

    The chance that some tweet is negative when it comes from a follower of candidate X is pretty much the same as if it came from a follower of candidate Y.

    This uses two different algorithms, once very sophisticated (Microsoft’s supervised Deep Learning-based model), the other a good algorithm based on the algorithm standards of 5 to 10 years ago (Textblob’s grammar/dictionary-based rules). Microsoft’s algorithm calculates the chance a tweet is positive. Textblob’s rates the tweet from most negative (-1) to most positive (+1). But the variation of these measures changes little among tweets from followers from different candidates.

    I deliberately round my numbers to 1 digit for smaller samples (negative or very negative percentage) or 2 digits if it’s about an average over all the tweets. I don’t like false accuracy and it is rampant in the political media. Any NLP [Natural Language Processing] expert will tell you that reducing a tweet to a single number denoting its negativity/positivity is not an exact science. So the rounding reflects that uncertainty.

    Given this data, what do you think of the “Bernie Bro” narrative about his online supporters?

    Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other follower. There is one key difference that Twitter users and media don’t seem to be aware of. Bernie has a lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat’s campaigns.

    People responding to hundreds of millions of people online tend to dehumanize others. They remember that someone is female/male or follows some candidate or is of some race, but they frequently don’t pay attention to differentiate actions of one member of that group versus another. So rather than consider how frequently an individual of some group acts, they think of how frequently the group acts as a whole. If they interact with many more members of one group than another, that perception of the group is magnified by the number of members they see.

    Interesting. Did your opinion change after doing this little analysis?

    Yes. I believed that Bernie’s followers are more likely to like him because they are more likely to experience the very negative life circumstances that Bernie Sanders wants to fix. People in a negative situation are more likely to interact negatively with people, particularly those anonymous online people that they have no in-person relationship with. So I had anticipated that Bernie’s followers on average would have a much higher chance to be negative. This does not appear to be the case or at least not as much as the claims I read on Twitter, political media reports or on TV.

    Is there actually any difference between different candidates’ supporters online behavior, based on this?

    As a data scientist, I am usually skeptical of any result. So I’ll say maybe not or at least much less than claimed.

    I still would like to dig deeper into this. This analysis looks at all tweets. I would like to look just at twitter interactions between candidate’s supporters, look at tweets responding or mentioning media professionals. I want to use some algorithms in the research that evaluate hate speech, racism, sexism. I’d like to look at specific topics of discussion, and possibly evaluate the influence of negative tweets (eg. retweets and number of followers who could see a tweet/retweet).

    March 9, 2020 at 6:23 pm in reply to: Justin Lovett new Rams Strenth Coach #112093
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Stu Jackson@StuJRams
    A couple interesting connections: Lovett worked with current Rams TE Tyler Higbee and RB Todd Gurley while both were in college.

    March 9, 2020 at 6:21 pm in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #112092
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 6:20 pm in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112091
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 11:22 am in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112087
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 10:15 am in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #112084
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 10:07 am in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112083
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 1:48 am in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112082
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 9, 2020 at 1:46 am in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #112081
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Factoid from the wiki

    In the 2008 superbowl Kurt Warner joined Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, John Elway, and Tom Brady as the only quarterbacks to throw a touchdown pass in three Super Bowls. Warner had taken his team to the Super Bowl every year that he played as the starting quarterback during all regular and post season games.

    March 9, 2020 at 1:05 am in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #112079
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 8, 2020 at 10:03 pm in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112076
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Chris Long@JOEL9ONE
    I used to feel like jack youngblood when we put on the yellow and royal blue. This logo would make me feel like I’m playing AA ball.

    Everyone who nodded their heads in approval in the focus group should board a spaceship for the planet that made Matthew mcconaghuey’s friends old.

    ==

    March 8, 2020 at 9:25 pm in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112074
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    RamsMaineiac wrote:

    This is the worst thing ever.

    Even his eSports team has a better logo

    No argument from me.

    March 8, 2020 at 8:13 pm in reply to: Rams new logo confirmed #112071
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 8, 2020 at 4:43 pm in reply to: signs, comics, memes, & other visual aids #112063
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm in reply to: What Sanders needs to do now #112058
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    South Carolina, Neoliberalism’s Stranglehold, and the Mystique of the ‘Black Vote’
    By reducing black Americans’ concerns to race or exploiting the idea of a singular “black vote,” the elite political class undermines our ability to organize a majoritarian social movement to combat the ruling-class assault on all working people.

    Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania and an organizer for Medicare for All-South Carolina.

    Willie Legette is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at South Carolina State University and Lead Organizer, Medicare for All-South Carolina.

    https://portside.org/2020-03-07/south-carolina-neoliberalisms-stranglehold-and-mystique-black-vote?fbclid=IwAR27NqgTMD5050aD56CJQXvjasvnfbuKSNQx3aNC-2AR653m1Md28jR_hbQ

    Many progressives hoped that South Carolina black voters, who have consistently expressed strong support for Medicare for All and other components of Bernie Sanders’ political program, would counter the conventional wisdom that the “black vote” is tightly aligned with the Democratic party’s establishment wing and deliver a Sanders victory on Saturday. Of course, those hopes didn’t materialize. Black voters were 56% of the Democratic electorate here, and Biden received an estimated 61-64% of their votes. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the only other candidate embracing a reasonably honest version of Medicare for All, received 17% and 5% respectively. That was the not so good news on February 29.

    The much better news, though, is that exit polls showed half of Democratic primary voters in South Carolina supported “replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan for everyone.” Roughly 40% of voters indicated that they saw health care as the most important issue, and fewer than one in ten agreed that the economic system “works well enough as it is.” Indeed, 53% of those voters agreed that the American economic system “needs a complete overhaul.” South Carolina is one of 14 states that refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and medical debt is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the state; so it’s not surprising that Democratic voters would be so open to transformative political change in principle.

    Yet, of those in South Carolina who support replacing private health insurance, 44% voted for Biden, 29% for Sanders and 8% for Warren. Of those who said that the economic system needs a complete overhaul, 49% voted for Biden, and 22% for Sanders. A similar pattern emerged on Super Tuesday as well. So how do we make sense of what seems to be the disconnect between people’s concerns and how they voted?

    Several factors account for it. One is likely confusion or uncertainty fomented by conservative Democrats and the corporate media. Some voters believed erroneously, for example, that Buttigieg or other opposing candidates supported Medicare for All. In addition, the anti-Medicare for All industry front group, Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, spent $200,000 on non-stop ads that directly attacked Medicare for All, including during the Charleston debate.

    A reason for that disconnect that we want to focus on in particular has to do with the complexities of what is called the “black vote.” Nationally, black voters are more likely than others to support a single-payer health care system at 74%, compared to 69% among Hispanics and 44% among whites. And there is little reason to assume that black support for Medicare for All in South Carolina differs substantially from the national data. Our experience in the Debs-Jones-Douglass Institute’s Medicare for All-South Carolina campaign certainly comports with the national findings. Between December 2019 and the primary, our “I’m a Medicare for All Voter” initiative gathered more than 10,000 pledge cards from South Carolinians, largely black, who indicated that they would vote only for candidates who support Medicare for All.

    The disjunction between candidate choices and issue concerns reflects how people are accustomed to making their short-term electoral calculations and how they understand the issues that affect their lives. People take different criteria to candidate selection than to their estimations of the issues that most concern them. In part that is the result of decades of bipartisan neoliberal hegemony in which electoral politics has been drained of serious policy differences. For more than forty years neither Republicans nor Democrats have sought to address Americans’ decreasing standard of living and increasing economic insecurity. Both parties have subordinated voters’ concerns to the interests of Wall Street and corporations. Therefore, in states like South Carolina Democratic party politics is fundamentally transactional, where people are habituated to making electoral choices based on considerations like personal relationships or more local concerns that do not center so much on national policy issues. In effect politics—or at least electoral politics—has been redefined as not the appropriate domain for trying to pursue policies that address people’s actual material concerns like health care, education, jobs and wages, or housing.

    That narrow view of politics was on display regarding the “black vote” in particular in the runup to the 2016 South Carolina primary when Congressmen James Clyburn (D-SC), John Lewis (D-GA), and Cedric Richmond (D-LA) denounced calls for free public higher education as “irresponsible” because “there are no free lunches.” When Clyburn endorsed Biden in 2020, he took a swipe at Medicare for All, another issue with strong black American support, indicating that the choice this year is Biden vs. Medicare for All. (It may be worth noting that Clyburn, between 2008 and 2018, took more than $1 million from the pharmaceutical industry.)

    Almost exactly four years ago, political scientist Cedric Johnson published a very important Jacobin magazine essay—titled “Fear and Pandering in the Palmetto State”—prompted by the, if anything, more disappointing outcome of the last South Carolina primary. In rejecting the interpretation that black South Carolinians had voted against their interests in supporting Hillary Clinton, he also rejected the idea of a singular “black vote.” He insisted that “some black people did vote their interests, as they understand them, which shouldn’t be a revelation if you see black people as a group who hold multiple, shifting and conflicting interests.” He then laid out a variety of scenarios under which black South Carolinians would reasonably have voted for Clinton, noting that it’s also important to take into account that their “impressions, preferences, and expectations have been formed in a conservative state in uncertain times.”

    Johnson problematizes “black politics” as a framework for understanding either black Americans’ electoral behavior or their class and political interests. He points out that “voting for a presidential candidate… is only a proxy for political interests, which are again multifaceted and shifting.” Black politics, in fact, is an historically specific phenomenon, as Johnson argues elsewhere. It is a label attached to the racialized black interest-group politics that consolidated after the great victories of the 1960s. It is thoroughly a class politics that rests on a premise—and one asserted with increasing intensity as class differences among black Americans become clearer in political debate—that all black Americans converge around a racial agenda defined arbitrarily by political elites and others in the stratum of freelance Racial Voices.

    That perspective helps to understand the vitriol with which Reps. Clyburn, Lewis, and Richmond attacked the Sanders program in 2016. It stemmed from a turf-protectiveness affronted by direct appeals to black Americans addressing concerns arising from their discrete social positions. Such appeals are “irresponsible” not only because they encourage black people to aspire beyond the constraints of neoliberal hegemony but also because those appeals disregard the brokerage role of the black political class and political-managerial class opinion shapers.

    The black political class, to put it bluntly, uses the status of “representing” black people to accrue benefits for themselves and elite strata among black Americans. In pursuing such interests, it is not unusual for them to advocate anti-democratic positions. In 2016 the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and other black elected officials offered the strongest opposition to decreasing the role of Super Delegates at the Democratic Party Convention. Unashamedly, they argued that they as black representatives should not have to run against party activists, and they should not be expected to support presidential candidates that they did not have a role in selecting.

    Since 2016 the black punditry has converged around a narrative that Sanders has difficulty appealing to black voters, even as polls have shown repeatedly that his program is more popular among black Americans than any other group. This effort recently hit a comic plateau when the The Root produced a report purporting to evaluate the Democratic candidates in relation to a “Black Agenda.” The report, based on criteria crafted by anonymous “experts,” ranked Warren first with Biden, Buttigieg, and Steyer also ahead of Sanders. Tellingly, Buttigieg and Steyer offered decidedly class-skewed racial programs centering on entrepreneurship and business development, and Sanders was graded down for having had the temerity to consider mobilizing a primary challenge to “the first black president.”

    Another facet of this black politics is that, in reducing all of black Americans’ concerns to race, it undermines our abilities to organize the majoritarian social movement response we need to combat the ever more naked assertion of ruling-class power against all working people in the United States. In 2018, we noted—regarding South Carolina in particular—that Republicans and Democrats shared an interest in making race the most significant fault line in the state’s politics. We recalled political scientist V. O. Key’s 1949 conclusion that the state’s preoccupation with race stifled political conflict and noted the irony that Key’s assessment of how race worked then largely holds today, albeit in a different way because black Democrats are as committed to that race reductionism as are white Republicans. Much as other Wall Street Democrats clearly are more troubled by a Sanders victory than a Trump re-election, the black brokerage stratum is ever more explicit that its main objective is to undermine black Americans’ participation in a broad movement for social transformation along economically egalitarian lines.

    The CBC response to Trump’s election brings this problem into clear view. In 2016, candidate Trump challenged black elected officials and the Democratic Party by asking black voters, “What do you have to lose” in voting for him. Responding to the provocation, the CBC presented a report, “We Have A Lot To Lose: Solutions To Advance Black Families In The 21st Century” (pdf), to President Trump. The Caucus followed this up with the “Jobs and Justice Act of 2018.” Both offered moderate neoliberal solutions to the salient problems confronting the majority of black people. After the press conferences both documents were submitted to the dust bin of history. Such posturing expresses the character of contemporary “black politics.”

    This leads to our final observation regarding last Saturday’s primary. Johnson concludes his essay by stressing that our endgame

    “is not the election of a president but the transformation of the country into a place that is more egalitarian, just, and humane, a society where poverty is not possible and where real freedom is enjoyed by all… The kind of popular pressure we need to advance some of the best of Sanders’s platform—free higher education, postal banking, public works, a single-payer health care system, stronger financial regulation, and so on—cannot be built in an election cycle.”

    Now we should say: “two election cycles.” As our opponents have made strikingly clear in recent weeks, to whatever extent it wasn’t already, we won’t and were never going to be able simply to elect our way into the kind of just society we need and deserve. The struggle for the Democratic presidential nomination and the room for debate it provides remain crucial, of course. However, the South Carolina results, as well as those of several—e.g., Virginia, where Biden bested Sanders 53-23, and 53% of voters indicated preference for Medicare for All—of the Super Tuesday states, underscore the need to dig in and build on the potential the Sanders moment has provided us to take up the slow, unglamorous work of building organically rooted working-class politics around issues that connect directly with people’s lives and concerns all over the United States. That approach is what led us to undertake the Medicare for All-South Carolina campaign, for which nonpartisan grassroots political education directed toward the primary was only an initial phase.

    We agree with Johnson, who is our friend and comrade, as well that the South Carolina primary in itself is significant really only in relation to the bizarre, disingenuous claim that winning the black vote in particular is the key to being able to win the presidency. No Democrat will win South Carolina in November. And it is worth noting that the same is likely true of several of the southern Super Tuesday states as well; outside the southern states Biden and Sanders were basically competitive.

    So here we are. The vaunted South Carolina primary has come and gone; the work remains.

    March 8, 2020 at 3:57 am in reply to: Does this mean a new logo is on the way? #112047
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Well we know a new logo is on its way.

    To be revealed around the time of the draft.

    March 8, 2020 at 1:38 am in reply to: just some “no thread for em” various political tweets … 2/25 thru ? #112045
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    —

    It’s always about the oil@nickbruechle
    Okay, US democracy is broken. We’ll start with hard-hitting sanctions that starve and deprive the people to encourage them to rise up for the democracy they deserve. Then when the economy is fucked and the people desperate, we attack. We stand with the US people.

    @Machwon46
    When do the troops land in Dallas? The area is right for a regime change.

    March 8, 2020 at 1:31 am in reply to: the “Bernie’s people dominate negative tweets” myth #112042
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Aren R. LeBrun@proustmalone
    A paid Elizabeth Warren staffer was rude to me online but I was able to endure it without altering my worldview in any fashion because it turns out I’m not a giant baby.

    March 8, 2020 at 12:30 am in reply to: the “Bernie’s people dominate negative tweets” myth #112039
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #BernieBros Is Gaslighting

    https://www.realprogressivesusa.com/news/democracy/2020-03-05-berniebros-is-gaslighting?fbclid=IwAR3Ryr1OBOBJrW1XyPFpZJU3Dl6l9v97R5lYWXJ7eJ1UOKP20ojlKgN5DFg

    The “Bernie Bro” trope has its roots in 2008 with Hillary Clinton’s negative campaign against Obama supporters. She called them “Obama Boys” and smeared them as sexist. In 2016, she used the same strategy against Bernie Sanders with almost identical language; she called his supporters “Bernie Bros.” The spin was manufactured and not based on objective reality, although people of every variety sometimes behave badly on the internet.

    So now in 2020, the pattern has been established. The media and opposition are exploiting the old familiar messaging.

    The people in power who hold media megaphones tend to oppose Bernie. Therefore they run into arguments and perhaps receive snarky put-downs from Bernie supporters.

    This behavior isn’t limited to supporters of any one candidate. New Bernie supporters can be surprised by the level of verbal abuse they receive from other camps. It has become clear that Bernie supporters are not more aggressive or negative than others. The opposite may be true.

    An environment has been created which sanctions hatred and abuse of those who promote Bernie Sanders and his call for a more just and compassionate society. This whole dynamic dates back 8 years before Bernie was even in the running.

    Those of us in this movement know this campaign is about compassion, solidarity, cooperation, and love.

    The media should question these cheap shots against us and stop reinforcing the negative, divisive, and false messaging about the Sanders campaign and our movement. It is harmful to democracy.

    March 7, 2020 at 7:15 pm in reply to: eliz warren drops out #112032
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator
    wv wrote:

    What about Hitler’s followers?
    What about Daenerys Targaryen’s followers?
    Lassie?

    I’m thinking Bernie-Bros and Bernie-Sisters fall somewhere between Hitler and Lassie.

    w
    v

    Hi WV. A personal note. I’ve noticed a couple of times now you will post something, it gets tagged (unjustly and in defiance of all that is good and right) as “pending.” What you then often do is re-post it without a quoted link, and then it works. Problem is, I go into the dashboard file to liberate “pending” posts before I actually look at the board. So then I unpend a post, and turns out, you have already corrected it. None of which is a big deal. You do right to unstick a pending post yourself. If I see it in “pending” first, I approve it, then come here and usually have to take down your corrected one. I hope you don’t mind.

    I think things are fine as is (apart from the fact that our gawddamm software tends toward a high incarceration rate). So I don’t mind if you don’t mind. My rule is, if I am on the board and see a corrected re-post by you FIRST, I will leave it alone; if I am in the “dashboard” first getting unjustly pending posts out of Azkaban and later find that leads to a dual post, I will delete one. Again that’s fine with me if it’s fine with you.

    So this is just a heads up, nothing to see here.

    ….

    March 7, 2020 at 6:13 pm in reply to: just some “no thread for em” various political tweets … 2/25 thru ? #112026
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 7, 2020 at 6:10 pm in reply to: eliz warren drops out #112025
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    People do know about the study that showed there’s a certain percentage of all candidates’s followes who are negative/vicious online. Sanders’s people are not any more vicious than anyone else’s.

    I posted that data in another thread, here: http://theramshuddle.com/topic/the-bernies-people-dominate-negative-tweets-myth/

    March 7, 2020 at 1:50 pm in reply to: eliz warren drops out #112019
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 7, 2020 at 1:34 pm in reply to: beyond the heliosphere: Voyager 2 is gathering science data again #112017
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 7, 2020 at 11:27 am in reply to: progress on new CBA? #112013
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
    It’s important to emphasize here that a lot of the stronger owners (i.e. Jones, Kraft) want this deal to go through because they view the CBA as small potatoes, vs. looming broadcast talks and gambling monetization.

    Their urgency is a desire to get to work on those things.

    —

    March 7, 2020 at 11:25 am in reply to: the “Bernie’s people dominate negative tweets” myth #112012
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 7, 2020 at 11:20 am in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #112011
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    March 6, 2020 at 10:29 pm in reply to: tweets … 3/6 thru 3/12 #111994
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Ram_Ruler

    I’m listening to the 11 personnel podcast (which I highly recommend by the way)

    Ram_Ruler
    Mcvay disclosed that Henderson had a lingering ankle issue which is why we didn’t see much of him besides a few solid runs

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 30 posts - 21,901 through 21,930 (of 47,660 total)
1 2 3 … 730 731 732 … 1,587 1,588 1,589